ArticleGlobal health action2025
Feasibility and priority strategies for diabetes prevention and control in Chinese demonstration areas.
Article in Global health action, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes is a leading global public health challenge with 537 million cases worldwide in 2021 and significant economic and societal burdens. Despite global initiatives, feasibility constraints limit widespread implementation of diabetes prevention/control measures. The key to facilitating the implementation of diabetes prevention and control measures lies in prioritise them.
objectivesThis study aimed to determine the priority of diabetes prevention and control measures in China from the feasibility perspective.
methodsFrom January to February 2021, an online survey was administered to professionals specifically responsible for implementing chronic disease prevention and control programs in 488 national demonstration areas in China. The survey assessed the importance and feasibility of 44 diabetes prevention and control measures across 10 dimensions. The Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) model categorized these indicators into four quadrants: Highest Priority (high importance and feasibility), Priority Improvement (high importance, low feasibility), Lowest Priority (low importance and feasibility), and Secondary Improvement (low importance, high feasibility).
resultsQuadrant 1 ('Highest Priority') included health education, community action, high-risk discovery and intervention, and medical insurance and family doctors, which should be maintained and strengthened. Quadrant 2 ('Priority Improvement') included patient management and complication screening, necessitating targeted efforts to enhance implementation. Quadrant 3 ('Lowest Priority') included personal health services assessment follow-up, environmental support, sugar reduction policy, and diabetes co-infection prevention, indicating a risk of overinvestment. No indicators were categorized into Quadrant 4 ('Secondary Priority').
conclusionsPrioritizing diabetes prevention and control measures based on feasibility maximizes the utilization of limited resources, providing implementable recommendations for policymakers.
Indexed as
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.