ArticleBMC medical education2026
Implementation and evaluation of an insulin use manual in the public health system of a Peruvian Region: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes is a major public health issue, especially in low-and middle- income countries (LMICs) where barriers to care are common. Despite insulin's critical role, access remains limited due to market concentration, weak policies, poor availability, and lack of trained staff. This study evaluated the implementation of an insulin use manual in Tumbes, Peru, focusing on healthcare workers training and systemic barriers.
methodsThis was a two-phase descriptive mixed-methods study conducted in Tumbes, Peru. In the first phase (March-June 2023), a virtual course on insulin use followed by an on-site workshop was implemented for healthcare workers, with quantitative assessments of knowledge and satisfaction. In the second phase (October 2023), qualitative interviews were carried out with these healthcare workers as well as patients and caregivers to evaluate both the implementation process and the local health system using the Rapid Assessment Protocol for Insulin Access, Medical Research Council for Process Evaluation, and the World Health Organization (WHO)'s Six Building Blocks framework. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and thematic coding.
resultsThe virtual course registered 193 participants, but only 44 completed all units, the median knowledge median scores rose from 15.3 to 19.1). In the on-site workshop, 28 participants attended. Median scores increased from 14 (IQR 10-16) at baseline to 15 (IQR 10-16) in the post-test. Feedback highlighted the course's flexibility and practical relevance, though participants suggested more hands-on components and patient education tools. Interviews revealed systemic barriers across WHO's Six Building Blocks framework, including limited training and confidence among healthcare workers in insulin management, shortages of insulin and related supplies at the primary care level, weak health information systems without proper tracking of insulin users; high out-of-pocket costs that undermine adherence, inadequate patient education, and insufficient leadership and supervision to ensure consistent diabetes care.
conclusionsThis study shows that while targeted training can improve healthcare workers' knowledge on insulin use, systemic gaps continue to hinder quality diabetes care. Broader implementation of insulin protocols in LMICs requires not only training, but also a comprehensive reinforcement of the health system at all levels.
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.