Mayowa O Owolabi1, Joseph O Yaria2, Meena Daivadanam3,4, Akintomiwa I Makanjuola2, Gary Parker5, Brian Oldenburg6, Rajesh Vedanthan7, Shane Norris8, Ayodele R Oguntoye2, Morenike A Osundina2, Omarys Herasme7, Sulaiman Lakoh2, Luqman O Ogunjimi2, Sarah E Abraham2, Paul Olowoyo9, Carolyn Jenkins10, Wuwei Feng10, Hernán Bayona11, Sailesh Mohan12, Rohina Joshi13, Ruth Webster13, Andre P Kengne14, Antigona Trofor15, Lucia Maria Lotrean16, Devarsetty Praveen17, Jessica H Zafra-Tanaka18, Maria Lazo-Porras18, Kirsten Bobrow19, Michaela A Riddell20, Konstantinos Makrilakis21, Yannis Manios22, Bruce Ovbiagele10. 1. University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria mayowaowolabi@yahoo.com. 2. University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria. 3. Department of Food, Nutrition and Dietetics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden. 5. University College London, London, U.K. 6. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 8. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 9. Federal Teaching Hospital, Ido-Ekiti, Nigeria. 10. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 11. Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá Hospital, University of the Andes, Bogota, Colombia. 12. Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India. 13. The George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 14. South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa. 15. Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iaşi, Romania. 16. Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 17. The George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India. 18. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru. 19. University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 20. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 21. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 22. Harokopio University, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The extent to which diabetes (DM) practice guidelines, often based on evidence from high-income countries (HIC), can be implemented to improve outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is a critical challenge. We carried out a systematic review to compare type 2 DM guidelines in individual LMIC versus HIC over the past decade to identify aspects that could be improved to facilitate implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eligible guidelines were sought from online databases and websites of diabetes associations and ministries of health. Type 2 DM guidelines published between 2006 and 2016 with accessible full publications were included. Each of the 54 eligible guidelines was assessed for compliance with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards, coverage of the cardiovascular quadrangle (epidemiologic surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation), translatability, and its target audiences. RESULTS: Most LMIC guidelines were inadequate in terms of applicability, clarity, and dissemination plan as well as socioeconomic and ethical-legal contextualization. LMIC guidelines targeted mainly health care providers, with only a few including patients (7%), payers (11%), and policy makers (18%) as their target audiences. Compared with HIC guidelines, the spectrum of DM clinical care addressed by LMIC guidelines was narrow. Most guidelines from the LMIC complied with less than half of the IOM standards, with 12% of the LMIC guidelines satisfying at least four IOM criteria as opposed to 60% of the HIC guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A new approach to the contextualization, content development, and delivery of LMIC guidelines is needed to improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The extent to which diabetes (DM) practice guidelines, often based on evidence from high-income countries (HIC), can be implemented to improve outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is a critical challenge. We carried out a systematic review to compare type 2 DM guidelines in individual LMIC versus HIC over the past decade to identify aspects that could be improved to facilitate implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eligible guidelines were sought from online databases and websites of diabetes associations and ministries of health. Type 2 DM guidelines published between 2006 and 2016 with accessible full publications were included. Each of the 54 eligible guidelines was assessed for compliance with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards, coverage of the cardiovascular quadrangle (epidemiologic surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation), translatability, and its target audiences. RESULTS: Most LMIC guidelines were inadequate in terms of applicability, clarity, and dissemination plan as well as socioeconomic and ethical-legal contextualization. LMIC guidelines targeted mainly health care providers, with only a few including patients (7%), payers (11%), and policy makers (18%) as their target audiences. Compared with HIC guidelines, the spectrum of DM clinical care addressed by LMIC guidelines was narrow. Most guidelines from the LMIC complied with less than half of the IOM standards, with 12% of the LMIC guidelines satisfying at least four IOM criteria as opposed to 60% of the HIC guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A new approach to the contextualization, content development, and delivery of LMIC guidelines is needed to improve outcomes.
Authors: Cristina Mamédio da Costa Santos; Cibele Andrucioli de Mattos Pimenta; Moacyr Roberto Cuce Nobre Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2007 May-Jun
Authors: Josefien Van Olmen; Ku Grace Marie; Darras Christian; Kalobu Jean Clovis; Bewa Emery; Van Pelt Maurits; Hen Heang; Van Acker Kristien; Eggermont Natalie; Schellevis François; Kegels Guy Journal: Prim Care Diabetes Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Linda Haas; Melinda Maryniuk; Joni Beck; Carla E Cox; Paulina Duker; Laura Edwards; Edwin B Fisher; Lenita Hanson; Daniel Kent; Leslie Kolb; Sue McLaughlin; Eric Orzeck; John D Piette; Andrew S Rhinehart; Russell Rothman; Sara Sklaroff; Donna Tomky; Gretchen Youssef Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: David Flood; Jacqueline A Seiglie; Matthew Dunn; Scott Tschida; Michaela Theilmann; Maja E Marcus; Garry Brian; Bolormaa Norov; Mary T Mayige; Mongal Singh Gurung; Krishna K Aryal; Demetre Labadarios; Maria Dorobantu; Bahendeka K Silver; Pascal Bovet; Jutta M Adelin Jorgensen; David Guwatudde; Corine Houehanou; Glennis Andall-Brereton; Sarah Quesnel-Crooks; Lela Sturua; Farshad Farzadfar; Sahar Saeedi Moghaddam; Rifat Atun; Sebastian Vollmer; Till W Bärnighausen; Justine I Davies; Deborah J Wexler; Pascal Geldsetzer; Peter Rohloff; Manuel Ramírez-Zea; Michele Heisler; Jennifer Manne-Goehler Journal: Lancet Healthy Longev Date: 2021-05-21
Authors: Angelika Sabine Sandholzer-Yilmaz; Eric Sven Kroeber; Wondimu Ayele; T Frese; Eva Johanna Kantelhardt; Susanne Unverzagt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Muhammad Amir Khan; John D Walley; Nida Khan; Joseph Hicks; Maqsood Ahmed; Shaheer Ellahi Khan; Muhammad Ahmar Khan; Haroon Jehangir Khan; Anthony D Harries Journal: BJGP Open Date: 2018-12-12
Authors: Jennifer Manne-Goehler; Pascal Geldsetzer; Kokou Agoudavi; Glennis Andall-Brereton; Krishna K Aryal; Brice Wilfried Bicaba; Pascal Bovet; Garry Brian; Maria Dorobantu; Gladwell Gathecha; Mongal Singh Gurung; David Guwatudde; Mohamed Msaidie; Corine Houehanou; Dismand Houinato; Jutta Mari Adelin Jorgensen; Gibson B Kagaruki; Khem B Karki; Demetre Labadarios; Joao S Martins; Mary T Mayige; Roy Wong McClure; Omar Mwalim; Joseph Kibachio Mwangi; Bolormaa Norov; Sarah Quesnel-Crooks; Bahendeka K Silver; Lela Sturua; Lindiwe Tsabedze; Chea Stanford Wesseh; Andrew Stokes; Maja Marcus; Cara Ebert; Justine I Davies; Sebastian Vollmer; Rifat Atun; Till W Bärnighausen; Lindsay M Jaacks Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Grainne O'Donoghue; Cliona O'Sullivan; Isabelle Corridan; Jennifer Daly; Ronan Finn; Kathryn Melvin; Casey Peiris Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390