ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Understanding implementation, adoption, and acceptability of the WHO package of essential noncommunicable (PEN) disease interventions in FIJI: Evidence for scale-up.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Package of Essential Noncommunicable (PEN) disease interventions in response to the high prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes was implemented in Fiji commencing in 2012. This study aimed to understand implementation outcomes, and its contextual influences. Semi-structured interviews with health workers and patients across Fiji was conducted. Thematic analysis was mapped to the health system building blocks to understand PEN service delivery. The PEN program was well received by health workers formally trained. The frequency of use of PEN guidelines was influenced at the individual level by motivation, capability and capacity as well as external factors outside of the health workers' control. The key challenges to routine use were lack of essential medicines and equipment for CVD risk screening and management, shortage of health workers, high turnover of staff, limited formal training, and no designated focal person. However, at the country level, the PEN program improved the quality of care by providing patients with regular follow-up visits depending on their CVD risk levels. The patients found care to be comprehensive when they were also seen by dieticians and physiotherapists. In most instances, the barrier to access to care were cost and distance of travel and non-availability of essential medicines. To improve use of PEN program requires strengthening health system components: 1) need for efficient supply chain system for medicines and equipment, 2) improving healthcare workforce retention, 3) establishing accountability mechanisms embedded within the health centres, 4) health information system to track patient level data and 5) multi-level governance structures across the health system.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.