ArticlePLOS global public health2025
A quality improvement approach to scaling up a complex health system intervention for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in rural Indonesia.
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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scaling up effective public health interventions is crucial for achieving universal health coverage, yet remains challenging. We report the use of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement model to support the iterative scale-up of a community-based cardiovascular disease risk management program in Malang District, East Java, Indonesia. A pragmatic implementation study comprising three PDSA cycles was conducted in 10 'test of scale-up' villages between April 2021 and December 2022. Each cycle included: 1) the capture of quantitative outcomes, such as the number of new community members screened per month and diagnostic summaries with predicted risk status; and 2) semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with health care workers, community members, and community health workers in each village to assess acceptability, adoption, adaptations and perceived effectiveness. Based on identified implementation barriers, local Technical Working Groups designed change strategies, which were implemented and evaluated in subsequent cycles. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted program delivery in the first two PDSA cycles, reducing screening to an average of 112 and 7, respectively. In cycle 3, 463 community members were screened. Across the 10 participating villages, 42 interviews and 30 focus group discussions were conducted per PDSA cycle. Key barriers included difficulty reaching male community members, inadequate resourcing, limited essential medications and poor integration with existing health information systems. Change strategies included centralising screening activities, leveraging instant messaging platforms, additional activities to engage men and streamlined procurement processes. Each village demonstrated versatility in addressing implementation challenges. These findings highlight the utility of the PDSA model in supporting the iterative scale-up of a community-based cardiovascular disease risk management programs in real-world settings, even amid significant disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.