Implementation of national action plans on noncommunicable diseases, Bhutan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam (original) (raw)
Related papers
Advancement of global health: key messages from the Disease Control Priorities Project
Lancet, 2006
The Disease Control Priorities Project (DCPP), a joint project of the Fogarty International Center of the US National Institutes of Health, the WHO, and The World Bank, was launched in 2001 to identify policy changes and intervention strategies for the health problems of low-income and middle-income countries. Nearly 500 experts worldwide compiled and reviewed the scientific research on a broad range of diseases and conditions, the results of which are published this week. A major product of DCPP, Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries, 2nd edition (DCP2), focuses on the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of health-improving strategies (or interventions) for the conditions responsible for the greatest burden of disease. DCP2 also examines crosscutting issues crucial to the delivery of quality health services, including the organisation, financial support, and capacity of health systems. Here, we summarise the key messages of the project.
Systemic Solutions for Addressing Non-Communicable Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 2020
Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have been on the rise in low-and middleincome countries (LMICs) over the last few decades and represent a significant healthcare concern. Over 85% of "premature" deaths worldwide due to NCDs occur in the LMICs. NCDs are an economic burden on these countries, increasing their healthcare expenditure. However, targeting NCDs in LMICs is challenging due to evolving health systems and an emphasis on acute illness. The major issues include limitations with universal health coverage, regulations, funding, distribution and availability of the healthcare workforce, and availability of health data. Experts from across the health sector in LMICs formed a Think Tank to understand and examine the issues, and to offer potential opportunities that may address the rising burden of NCDs in these countries. This review presents the evidence and posits pragmatic solutions to combat NCDs.
International journal of health policy and management, 2021
Background: To determine the health system costs and health-related benefits of interventions for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including mental health disorders, for the purpose of identifying the most cost-effective intervention options in support of global normative guidance on the best-buy interventions for NCDs. In addition, tools are developed to allow country contextualisation of the analyses to support local priority setting exercises. Methods: This analysis follows the standard WHO-CHOICE (World Health Organization-Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective) approach to generalized cost-effectiveness analysis applied to two regions, Eastern sub-Saharan Africa and SouthEast Asia. The scope of the analysis is all NCD and mental health interventions included in WHO guidelines or guidance documents for which the health impact of the intervention is able to be identified and attributed. Costs are measured in 2010 international dollars, and benefits modelled beginning in 2010, both for a period of 100 years. Results: There are many interventions for NCD prevention and management that are highly cost-effective, generating one year of healthy life for less than Int. $100. These interventions include tobacco and alcohol control policies such as taxation, voluntary and legislative actions to reduce sodium intake, mass media campaigns for reducing physical activity, and treatment options for cardiovascular disease (CVD), cervical cancer and epilepsy. In addition a number of interventions fall just outside this range, including breast cancer, depression and chronic lung disease treatment. Conclusion: Interventions that represent good value for money, are technically feasible and are delivered for a low per-capita cost, are available to address the rapid rise in NCDs in low-and middle-income countries. This paper also describes a tool to support countries in developing NCD action plans.
Capacity to control noncommunicable diseases in the countries of South-East Asia
Health Policy, 2009
Objective: To assess the status of national capacity for prevention the and control of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in the Member States of the SouthEast Asia (SEA) Region of the World Health Organization (WHO). Methods: A survey was conducted in 2006-2007 in all 11 Member States of the SEA Region of WHO using a regional adaptation of the global WHO questionnaire. Information was collected on the existence of national legislation, policies, strategies, and programmes, implementation status of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and the Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, and the availability of services and financial resources for the prevention and control of NCDs. The results of this survey were compared with those of a similar survey conducted in the region in 2001. Results: The comparison of two surveys showed progress made in the Region between 2001 and 2006 in strengthening commitment and capacity to prevent and control NCDs. Major gaps remain in the creation of appropriate legislative and regulatory environment, policy formulation for the promotion of healthy nutrition and physical activity, and generation of guidelines for the management of NCDs and their risk factors. Conclusion: Member States of the SEA Region need to enhance the capacity to address critical gaps in their national polices and programmes for the prevention and control of NCDs. This requires technical support of WHO and other developmental partners.
Implementing new health interventions in developing countries: why do we lose a decade or more?
BMC Public Health, 2012
Background: It is unclear how long it takes for health interventions to transition from research and development (R&D) to being used against diseases prevalent in resource-poor countries. We undertook an analysis of the time required to begin implementation of four vaccines and three malaria interventions. We evaluated five milestones for each intervention, and assessed if the milestones were associated with beginning implementation. Methods: The authors screened World Health Organization (WHO) databases to determine the number of years between first regulatory approval of interventions, and countries beginning implementation. Descriptive analyses of temporal patterns and statistical analyses using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate associations between five milestones and the beginning of implementation for each intervention. The milestones were: (A) presence of a coordinating group focused on the intervention; (B) availability of an intervention tailored to developing country health systems; (C) international financing commitment, and; (D) initial and (E) comprehensive WHO recommendations. Countries were categorized by World Bank income criteria. Results: Five years after regulatory approval, no low-income countries (LICs) had begun implementing any of the vaccines, increasing to an average of only 4% of LICs after 10 years. Each malaria intervention was used by an average of 7% of LICs after five years and 37% after 10 years. Four of the interventions had similar implementation rates to hepatitis B vaccine (HepB), while one was slower and one was faster than HepB. A financing commitment and initial WHO recommendation appeared to be temporally associated with the beginning of implementation. The initial recommendation from WHO was the only milestone associated in all statistical analyses with countries beginning implementation (relative rate = 1.97, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Although possible that four milestones were not associated with countries beginning implementation, we propose an alternative interpretation; that the milestones were not realized early enough in each intervention's development to shorten the time to beginning implementation. We discuss a framework built upon existing literature for consideration during the development of future interventions. Identifying critical milestones and their timing relative to R&D, promises to help new interventions realize their intended public health impact more rapidly.
Health Services Insights, 2021
This review was conducted to assess the capacity of the public sector to prevent and control noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) based on WHO-PEN standards. A PRISMA systematic search appraisal of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was conducted during May-2020 for original articles conducted in LMIC and reported the capacity of the public sector to prevent and control NCDs. The country readiness score was calculated as the mean score of items for each domain. The indices were compared to an agreed cutoff at 80% the WHO optimal target of availability of affordable essential medicines and basic technologies required to treat NCDs. The literature search yielded 5 original studies, conducted in twelve countries, and surveyed 304 public health facilities. All countries failed to reach the WHO optimal target of availability of affordable essential medicines and basic technologies. The readiness index score according to WHO-PEN standards among countries in te...
Country actions to meet UN commitments on non-communicable diseases: a stepwise approach
Strong leadership from heads of state is needed to meet national commitments to the UN political declaration on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and to achieve the goal of a 25% reduction in premature NCD mortality by 2025 (the 25 by 25 goal). A simple, phased, national response to the political declaration is suggested, with three key steps: planning, implementation, and accountability. Planning entails mobilisation of a multisectoral response to develop and support the national action plan, and to build human, financial, and regulatory capacity for change. Implementation of a few priority and feasible cost-effective interventions for the prevention and treatment of NCDs will achieve the 25 by 25 goal and will need only few additional financial resources. Accountability incorporates three dimensions: monitoring of progress, reviewing of progress, and appropriate responses to accelerate progress. A national NCD commission or equivalent, which is independent of government, is needed to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are held accountable for the UN commitments to NCDs.