No abstract

One size does not fit all: implementation of interventions for non-communicable diseases OPEN ACCESSImplementation of evidence based interventions for non-communicable diseases is slow in many countries, and João Breda and colleagues call for more support to help them adapt the recommendations to their local context João Breda head

Background While the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of most noncommunicable disease (NCD) prevention and treatment interventions is well established, care delivery models and means of scaling these up in a variety of resource-constrained health systems are not. The objective of this review was to synthesize evidence on the current state of implementation research on priority NCD prevention and control interventions provided by health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods and findings On January 20, 2021, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1990 through 2020 to identify implementation research studies that focused on the World Health Organization (WHO) priority NCD prevention and control interventions targeting cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease and provided within health systems in LMICs. Any empirical and peer-reviewed studies that focused on these interventions and reported implementation outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Given the focus on this review and the heterogeneity in aims and methodologies of included studies, risk of bias assessment to understand how effect size may have been compromised by bias is not applicable. We instead commented on the distribution of research designs and discussed about stronger/weaker designs. We synthesized extracted data using descriptive statistics and following the review protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252969). Of 9,683 potential studies and 7,419 unique records screened for inclusion, 222 eligible studies evaluated 265 priority NCD prevention and control interventions implemented in 62 countries (6% in low-income countries and 90% in middle-income countries). The number of studies published has been increasing over time. Nearly 40% of all the studies were on cervical cancer. With regards to intervention type, screening accounted for 49%, treatment for 39%, while prevention for 12% (with 80% of the latter focusing on prevention of the NCD behavior risk factors). Feasibility (38%) was the most studied implementation outcome followed by adoption (23%); few studies addressed sustainability. The implementation strategies were not specified well enough. Most studies used quantitative methods (86%). The weakest study design, preexperimental, and the strongest study design, experimental, were respectively employed in 25% and 24% of included studies. Approximately 72% of studies reported funding, with international funding being the predominant source. The majority of studies were proof of concept or pilot (88%) and targeted the micro level of health system (79%). Less than 5% of studies report using implementation research framework. Conclusions Despite growth in implementation research on NCDs in LMICs, we found major gaps in the science. Future studies should prioritize implementation at scale, target higher levels health systems (meso and macro levels), and test sustainability of NCD programs. They should employ designs with stronger internal validity, be more conceptually driven, and use mixed methods to understand mechanisms. To maximize impact of the research under limited resources, adding implementation science outcomes to effectiveness research and regional collaborations are promising.

Background Nepal adopted the Multisectoral Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases (MSAP) in 2014. Implementation of the plan has been challenging, with limited participation from non-health sectors. Objectives The overall aim of the study was to gain the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the Nepal MSAP on the barriers and facilitators to its implementation, through the participation of relevant sectors in the plan. Methods We held face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 12 stakeholders working in sectors involved in the MSAP. These sectors included the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministries; Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP); Ministry of Education, Science and Technology; Ministry of Forest and Environment; academia; and professional organizations. Thematic analysis of transcripts was used to identify themes on awareness of NCDs, awareness of the MSAP, and barriers and facilitators to participation in the MSAP. Results Participants recognised NCDs as a growing and major burden in Nepal. However, a number of participants were not familiar with the MSAP, identifying a lack of leadership and poor dissemination. Political and systemic transformation, since the adoption of the MSAP, was seen as a key barrier to implementation. International commitments to develop multisectoral action made by the Government of Nepal were identified as drivers. The recent establishment of a separate section for NCDs and Mental Health within the Department of Health Services of MOHP and the promotion of a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach in recent national documents, were both considered to support implementation. Conclusions The establishment of permanent multisectoral or multistakeholder mechanisms has been challenging despite strong political calls for their development. Moving beyond 2020, multisectoral action plans should engage with stakeholders from federal, provincial and local governments in order to develop costed action plans with specific roles and responsibilities for each sector.

ObjectivesTo systematically explore how the sources of evidence, types of primary studies, and tools used to assess the quality of the primary studies vary across systematic reviews (SRs) in public health.MethodsWe conducted a methodological survey of SRs in public health by searching the of literature in selected journals from electronic bibliographic databases. We selected a 10% random sample of the SRs that met the explicit inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently extracted data for analysis.ResultsWe selected 301 SRs for analysis: 94 (31.2%) of these were pre-registered, and 211 (70.1%) declared to have followed published reporting standard. All SRs searched for evidence in electronic bibliographic databases, and more than half (n = 180, 60.0%) searched also the references of the included studies. The common types of primary studies included in the SRs were primarily cross-sectional studies (n = 132, 43.8%), cohort studies (n = 126, 41.9%), randomized controlled trials (RCTs, n = 89, 29.6%), quasi-experimental studies (n = 83, 27.6%), case-control studies (n = 58, 19.3%) qualitative studies (n = 38, 12.6%) and mixed-methods studies (n = 32, 10.6%). The most frequently used quality assessment tools were the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (used for 50.0% of cohort studies and 55.6% of case-control studies), Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (50.7% of RCTs) and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (38.5% of qualitative studies). Only 20 (6.6%) of the SRs assessed the certainty of the body of evidence, of which 19 (95.0%) used the GRADE approach. More than 65% of the evidence in the SRs using GRADE was of low or very low certainty.ConclusionsSRs should always assess the quality both at the individual study level and the body of evidence for outcomes, which will benefit patients, health care practitioners, and policymakers.