Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30138318›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Assessing capacity and readiness to manage NCDs in primary care setting: Gaps and opportunities based on adapted WHO PEN tool in Zambia.

Wilbroad Mutale, Samuel Bosomprah, Perfect Shankalala, Oliver Mweemba, Roma Chilengi, Sharon Kapambwe, Charles Chishimba, Mulenga Mukanu, Daniel Chibutu, Douglas Heimburger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Wilbroad MutaleUniversity of Zambia, School of Public Health, Lusaka, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0002-4891-6750
Samuel BosomprahCentre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Perfect ShankalalaUniversity of Zambia, School of Public Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Oliver MweembaUniversity of Zambia, School of Public Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Roma ChilengiCentre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0003-0221-9527
Sharon KapambweMinistry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Charles ChishimbaMinistry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Mulenga MukanuUniversity of Zambia, School of Public Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Daniel ChibutuUniversity of Zambia, School of Public Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Douglas HeimburgerVanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3551-9710

Funding

Assessment of capacity to prevent and manage major non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in primary care centres in Zambia: A health systems approachR21TW010471 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA · PI MUTALE, WILBROAD · 2016 to 2017
$270k
FIC NIH HHS R21 TW010471
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSub-Saharan Africa is experiencing an epidemiological transition as the burden of NCDs overtake communicable diseases. However, it is unknown what capacity and gaps exist at primary care level to address the growing burden of NCDs. This study aimed to assess the Zambian health system's capacity to address in NCDs, using an adapted WHO Essential Non Communicable Disease Interventions (WHO PEN) tool. METHODOLOGY: This was a cross-sectional facility survey in the three districts conducted from September 2017 to October 2017. We defined facility readiness along five domains: basic equipment, essential services, diagnostic capacity, counseling services, and essential medicines. For each domain, we calculated an index as the mean score of items expressed as percentage. These indices were compared to an agreed cutoff at 70%, meaning that a facility index or district index below 70% off was considered as 'not ready' to manage NCDs at that level. All analysis were performed using Stata 15 MP.

resultsThere appeared to be wide heterogeneity between facilities in respect of readiness to manage NCDs. Only 6 (including the three 1st level hospitals) out of the 46 facilities were deemed ready to manage NCDs. Only the first level hospitals scored a mean index higher than the 70% cut off; With regard to medications needed to manage NCDs, urban and rural health facilities were comparably equipped. However, there was evidence that calcium channel blockers (p = 0.013) and insulin (p = 0.022) were more likely to be available in urban and semi-urban health facilities compared to rural facilities.

conclusionOur study revealed gaps in primary health care capacity to manage NCDs in Zambia, with almost all health facilities failing to reach the minimum threshold. These results could be generalized to other similar districts in Zambia and the sub-region, where health systems remain focused on infectious rather than non-communicable Disease. These results should attract policy attention and potentially form the basis to review current approach to NCD care at the primary care level in Zambia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Indexed as

Africa South of the SaharaCommunity Health PlanningCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareDisease ManagementHealth FacilitiesHumansNoncommunicable DiseasesPrimary Health CareWorld Health OrganizationZambia

Identifiers

PMID30138318
PMCPMC6107121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.