Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31963116›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Contextualizing Evidence for Action on Diabetes in Low-Resource Settings-Project CEAD Part I: A Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.

Elisa Chilet-Rosell, Nora Piay, Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado, Blanca Lumbreras, Francisco Barrera-Guarderas, Ana Lucía Torres-Castillo, Cintia Caicedo-Montaño, Gregorio Montalvo-Villacis, Mar Blasco-Blasco, María Fernanda Rivadeneira and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Elisa Chilet-RosellCIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain.
Nora PiayDepartment of Public Health, Universidad Miguel Hernández, 03550 Sant Joan d'Alacant, Alicante, Spain.
Ildefonso Hernández-AguadoCIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain.
Blanca LumbrerasCIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain.
Francisco Barrera-GuarderasFaculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (PUCE), Quito 170143, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0001-5954-9696
Ana Lucía Torres-CastilloInstitute of Public Health, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (PUCE), Quito 170143, Ecuador.
Cintia Caicedo-MontañoCentre of Community Epidemiology and Tropical Medicine (CECOMET), Esmeraldas 0801265, Ecuador.
Gregorio Montalvo-VillacisSchool of Medical Specialities, Colegio de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ), Quito 170901, Ecuador.
Mar Blasco-BlascoDepartment of Public Health, Universidad Miguel Hernández, 03550 Sant Joan d'Alacant, Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1386-7108
María Fernanda RivadeneiraInstitute of Public Health, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (PUCE), Quito 170143, Ecuador.
María Pastor-ValeroCIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain.
Mónica Márquez-FigueroaCentre of Community Epidemiology and Tropical Medicine (CECOMET), Esmeraldas 0801265, Ecuador.
Juan Francisco VásconezFaculty of Nursing, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (PUCE), Quito 170143, Ecuador.
Lucy Anne ParkerCIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2362-4057
Universitat de Miguel Hernández d'Elx · ESPontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador · ECUniversidad San Francisco de Quito · EC

Funding

European Research Council 804761
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Challenges remain for policy adoption and implementation to tackle the unprecedented and relentless increase in obesity, diabetes and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), especially in low- and middle-income countries. The aim of this mixed-methods study is to analyse the contextual relevance and applicability to low-resource settings of a sample of evidence-based healthy public policies, using local knowledge, perceptions and pertinent epidemiological data. Firstly, we will identify and prioritise policies that have the potential to reduce the burden of diabetes in low-resource settings with a scoping review and modified Delphi method. In parallel, we will undertake two cross-sectional population surveys on diabetes risk and morbidity in two low-resource settings in Ecuador. Patients, community members, health workers and policy makers will analyse the contextual relevance and applicability of the policy actions and discuss their potential for the reduction in inequities in diabetes risk and morbidity in their population. This study tackles one of the greatest challenges in global health today: how to drive the implementation of population-wide preventative measures to fight NCDs in low resource settings. The findings will demonstrate how local knowledge, perceptions and pertinent epidemiological data can be used to analyse the contextual relevance and applicability of potential policy actions.

Indexed as

Clinical Studies as TopicCost of IllnessCross-Sectional StudiesDiabetes MellitusEcuadorHumansMorbidityRisk Assessmentdiabetes mellitusimplementation scienceprimary preventionpublic healthpublic policytype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID31963116
PMCPMC7013726
OpenAlexW3000234373

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.