Contextualizing Evidence for Action on Diabetes in Low-Resource Settings-Project CEAD Part-II, Strengthening the Health System: A Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.

Diabetes is a major public health problem, increasingly affecting low- and middle-income countries. The project CEAD (Contextualizing Evidence for Action in Diabetes in low-resource settings) aims to evaluate the implementation of comprehensive diabetes care in two low-resource settings in Ecuador and to stimulate context-led health systems innovations to improve diabetes care and reduce inequity. The mixed-methods approach includes a 24-month retrospective study to assess the current level of implementation of comprehensive diabetes care and participants will be followed up prospectively for two years to assess changes in healthcare and clinical outcomes from the outset of the research. We will include individuals diagnosed with type-2 diabetes aged over 18 years, who are accessing diabetes care in health facilities in the study districts. Varied stakeholders (patients and family members, community members, healthcare workers and decision-makers) will interpret the underlying causes of the observed weaknesses and propose solutions to strengthen diabetes-related healthcare in focus group discussions (FG). A second set of FG will analyze perceived improvements in healthcare based on prospective cohort findings and consider the success/failure of any context-led innovations occurring throughout the research. Our study will demonstrate how evidence can be contextualized to stimulate local innovations and overcome weaknesses of diabetes-related healthcare in low resource settings.

Contextualizing Evidence for Action on Diabetes in Low-Resource Settings-Project CEAD Part I: A Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.

Challenges remain for policy adoption and implementation to tackle the unprecedented and relentless increase in obesity, diabetes and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), especially in low- and middle-income countries. The aim of this mixed-methods study is to analyse the contextual relevance and applicability to low-resource settings of a sample of evidence-based healthy public policies, using local knowledge, perceptions and pertinent epidemiological data. Firstly, we will identify and prioritise policies that have the potential to reduce the burden of diabetes in low-resource settings with a scoping review and modified Delphi method. In parallel, we will undertake two cross-sectional population surveys on diabetes risk and morbidity in two low-resource settings in Ecuador. Patients, community members, health workers and policy makers will analyse the contextual relevance and applicability of the policy actions and discuss their potential for the reduction in inequities in diabetes risk and morbidity in their population. This study tackles one of the greatest challenges in global health today: how to drive the implementation of population-wide preventative measures to fight NCDs in low resource settings. The findings will demonstrate how local knowledge, perceptions and pertinent epidemiological data can be used to analyse the contextual relevance and applicability of potential policy actions.

The impact of the tax on sweetened beverages: a systematic review.

Background: Obesity has a serious impact on public health. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are implicated in the obesity epidemic. Regulation has been suggested as one approach to limit consumption. Objective: The aim of this study was to synthesize existing evidence related to the impact of taxes on the consumption, purchase, or sales of SSBs. Design: A systematic review was conducted by using MEDLINE through PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed), the Cochrane Library (http://www.cochranelibrary.com/), the Web of Science (https://login.webofknowledge.com/error/Error?PathInfo=%2F&Error=IPError), and Scopus (https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic) in the period 2011-2017 for studies that analyzed the impact of fiscal regulatory measures on the consumption, purchase, or sales of SSBs. The quality of evidence was assessed according to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and the TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs) statements. Results: Of the 17 studies, 5 (29.4%) evaluated the impact of a tax on SSBs in naturalistic experiments by county or city in the United States and in Mexico. Findings indicated that purchases or sales of SSBs decreased significantly with taxation amounts of 8% (Berkeley, CA) and 10% (Mexico). One study found no effect on sales of SSBs in 2 states that enacted a 5.5% tax on sodas. Twelve (70.6%) studies were based on virtual or experimental conditions evaluating either purchasing behavior or sales (6 studies; 50.0%) or behavioral intent (6 studies; 50.0%), resulting in a decrease in either purchasing behavior or sales or intent behavior with heterogeneity according to the tax rate. Conclusions: Taxation significantly influences planned purchases and increases the probability of the purchase of healthy beverages. SSB taxes have the potential to reduce calorie and sugar intake, but further research is needed to evaluate effects on diet quality.

Comparison of two methods to estimate adverse events in the IBEAS Study (Ibero-American study of adverse events): cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) epidemiology is the first step to improve practice in the healthcare system. Usually, the preferred method used to estimate the magnitude of the problem is the retrospective cohort study design, with retrospective reviews of the medical records. However this data collection involves a sophisticated sampling plan, and a process of intensive review of sometimes very heavy and complex medical records. Cross-sectional survey is also a valid and feasible methodology to study AEs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare AEs detection using two different methodologies: cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design. SETTING: Secondary and tertiary hospitals in five countries: Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru. PARTICIPANTS: The IBEAS Study is a cross-sectional survey with a sample size of 11 379 patients. The retrospective cohort study was obtained from a 10% random sample proportional to hospital size from the entire IBEAS Study population. METHODS: This study compares the 1-day prevalence of the AEs obtained in the IBEAS Study with the incidence obtained through the retrospective cohort study. RESULTS: The prevalence of patients with AEs was 10.47% (95% CI 9.90 to 11.03) (1191/11 379), while the cumulative incidence of the retrospective cohort study was 19.76% (95% CI 17.35% to 22.17%) (215/1088). In both studies the highest risk of suffering AEs was seen in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. Comorbid patients and patients with medical devices showed higher risk. CONCLUSION: The retrospective cohort design, although requires more resources, allows to detect more AEs than the cross-sectional design.

Clinical and socioeconomic determinants of congenital syphilis in Posadas, Argentina.

OBJECTIVES: To explore clinical and socioeconomic factors related to congenital syphilis in Posadas, Argentina. METHODS: Data were collected from 102 mothers who had given birth to an infant with congenital syphilis at Dr. Ramón Madariaga Central Hospital (2005-2007) and 306 control mothers. Clinical and demographic information were collected from clinical records, and socioeconomic details were obtained by interview. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the relationships between congenital syphilis and clinical and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: Receiving the recommended number of prenatal health checks had a clear protective effect on congenital syphilis in the univariate analysis (odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.86), as did being in a stable relationship (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14-0.38). Furthermore, women with secondary education or above were over four-times less likely to have a child with congenital syphilis compared to women who had not completed primary school education, even after controlling for the number of prenatal health checks and other factors (adjusted OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.72). In addition, women with previous stillborn births were over three-times more likely to have a baby with congenital syphilis after controlling for education and prenatal care (adjusted OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.24-9.16). CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear opportunity for reducing the burden of congenital syphilis by promoting syphilis screening and treatment in women with previous stillborn births. In addition, the potential impact of more general policies addressing social determinants of health, such as those improving education, must not be overlooked.