ArticleActa medica Philippina2026
Facility Assessment for the Implementation of the Philippine Package of Essential Noncommunicable Disease Interventions (PhilPEN) in Primary Health Care Centers in Metro Manila.
Article in Acta medica Philippina, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: The Philippine Package of Essential Noncommunicable Disease Interventions (PhilPEN) was introduced by the Department of Health through AO 2012-0029. This is anchored to WHO PEN, a prioritized set of cost-effective interventions that can be carried out to provide an acceptable standard of care at the primary health care level, even in low-resource settings. The study aims to evaluate the availability and adequacy of primary health care facilities in providing the PhilPEN package of interventions using the WHO assessment tool. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 25 randomly selected primary health care facilities in Metro Manila. Data were collected through structured interviews with facility staff and direct observation using a standardized questionnaire aligned with PhilPEN and WHO PEN guidelines. The tool assessed PhilPEN inputs (infrastructure, human resources, basic tools and equipment, essential medicines, record-keeping, financing) and services (risk assessment and screening, early diagnosis and monitoring, treatment and follow-up, counseling, referral of patients). Results: All facilities met the basic standards for infrastructure, human resources, record keeping, and financing. However, only 40% had all essential medicines, and just 16% had complete tools, including urine ketone/protein test strips. Risk assessment and patient counseling were consistently implemented, but early diagnosis and follow-up services were inconsistent due to training and supply gaps. Conclusion: Primary health care centers in Metro Manila demonstrate partial readiness for PhilPEN implementation. Gaps in tools, medicines, and protocol availability should be addressed to optimize NCD service delivery.
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.