ArticleInternational journal of integrated care
Implementation Determinants of Integrated Tuberculosis and Diabetes Care in South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Countries: A Systematic Review.
Article in International journal of integrated care. 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.
- Implementation Determinants of Integrated Tuberculosis and Diabetes Care in South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Countries: A Systematic Review.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tuberculosis (TB) and diabetes mellitus (DM) represent a growing syndemic in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly across South Asia. The bidirectional relationship between these diseases exacerbates health outcomes and increases system burdens. Although the World Health Organization has advocated for integrated management of TB and DM, implementation remains inconsistent across the SAARC region. This systematic review aims to identify and analyse implementation determinants of integrated TB and DM care in SAARC countries. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. searching MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL for peer-reviewed studies. Grey literature was sourced from Google Scholar and citation search. Four reviewers independently screened title, abstract and full text using Rayyan. Using a structured Excel form, two reviewers extracted data. Quality assessment was conducted by using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A narrative synthesis was conducted in line with SWiM guidelines to categorize implementation determinants as barriers or facilitators. Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were conducted across five SAARC countries: India (n = 7), Pakistan (n = 1), Bangladesh (n = 1), and Sri Lanka (n = 1). Identified facilitators included political commitment, use of digital tools, and training of healthcare workers. Barriers encompassed inadequate infrastructure and finances, workforce shortages, lack of standardized guidelines and fragmented vertical health systems. Conclusion: Integrated TB-DM care in the SAARC region remains at an early developmental stage, with most efforts limited to pilot projects or small-scale screenings. Despite political and institutional recognition of the dual burden, scale-up is constrained by systemic barriers, resource gaps, and lack of evidence-informed implementation strategies. Future efforts should prioritize system-wide integration guided by implementation frameworks, standardized protocols, and investment in workforce and infrastructure to achieve sustainable impact. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42025644263.
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.