BackgroundOne potential solution to limited healthcare access in low and middle income countries (LMIC) is task-shifting- the training of non-physician healthcare workers (NPHWs) to perform tasks traditionally undertaken by physicians. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of studies involving task-shifting for the management of non-communicable disease (NCD) in LMIC.MethodsA search strategy with the following terms “task-shifting”, “non-physician healthcare workers”, “community healthcare worker”, “hypertension”, “diabetes”, “cardiovascular disease”, “mental health”, “depression”, “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease”, “respiratory disease”, “cancer” was conducted using Medline via Pubmed and the Cochrane library. Two reviewers independently reviewed the databases and extracted the data.FindingsOur search generated 7176 articles of which 22 were included in the review. Seven studies were randomised controlled trials and 15 were observational studies. Tasks performed by NPHWs included screening for NCDs and providing primary health care. The majority of studies showed improved health outcomes when compared with usual healthcare, including reductions in blood pressure, increased uptake of medications and lower depression scores. Factors such as training of NPHWs, provision of algorithms and protocols for screening, treatment and drug titration were the main enablers of the task-shifting intervention. The main barriers identified were restrictions on prescribing medications and availability of medicines. Only two studies described cost-effective analyses, both of which demonstrated that task-shifting was cost-effective.ConclusionsTask-shifting from physicians to NPHWs, if accompanied by health system re-structuring is a potentially effective and affordable strategy for improving access to healthcare for NCDs. Since the majority of study designs reviewed were of inadequate quality, future research methods should include robust evaluations of such strategies.

Background: Most people with stroke in India have no access to organised

BackgroundNew methods are required to manage hypertension in resource-poor settings. We hypothesised that a community health worker (CHW)-led group-based education and monitoring intervention would improve control of blood pressure (BP). Methods and findingsWe conducted a baseline community-based survey followed by a cluster randomised controlled trial of people with hypertension in 3 rural regions of South India, each at differing stages of epidemiological transition. Participants with hypertension, defined as BP � 140/90

ObjectiveProcess evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.DesignSystematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.Data sourcesAcademic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance.Results69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention’s mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context—factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce—if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation.ConclusionGreater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016035572.