RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The prevalence of diabetes, defined as self-reported or fasting glycemia ≥7 mmol/L, was documented in 119,666 adults from three high-income (HIC), seven upper-middle-income (UMIC), four lower-middle-income (LMIC), and four low-income (LIC) countries. Relationships between diabetes and its risk factors within these country groupings were assessed using multivariable analyses.
RESULTS: Age- and sex-adjusted diabetes prevalences were highest in the poorer countries and lowest in the wealthiest countries (LIC 12.3%, UMIC 11.1%, LMIC 8.7%, and HIC 6.6%; P < 0.0001). In the overall population, diabetes risk was higher with a 5-year increase in age (odds ratio 1.29 [95% CI 1.28-1.31]), male sex (1.19 [1.13-1.25]), urban residency (1.24 [1.11-1.38]), low versus high education level (1.10 [1.02-1.19]), low versus high physical activity (1.28 [1.20-1.38]), family history of diabetes (3.15 [3.00-3.31]), higher waist-to-hip ratio (highest vs. lowest quartile; 3.63 [3.33-3.96]), and BMI (≥35 vs. <25 kg/m(2); 2.76 [2.52-3.03]). The relationship between diabetes prevalence and both BMI and family history of diabetes differed in higher- versus lower-income country groups (P for interaction < 0.0001). After adjustment for all risk factors and ethnicity, diabetes prevalences continued to show a gradient (LIC 14.0%, LMIC 10.1%, UMIC 10.9%, and HIC 5.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional risk factors do not fully account for the higher prevalence of diabetes in LIC countries. These findings suggest that other factors are responsible for the higher prevalence of diabetes in LIC countries.
METHODS: this cross-sectional online survey included healthcare personnel with non-clinical roles (public health workers and policy-makers) and those delivering health care (doctors and nurses). Respondents were recruited between May and September 2021 by random sampling, completed by snowball sampling.
RESULTS: among 236 participants (42% in clinical, 58% in non-clinical roles) there was an overall consensus between respondents on NCD care being disrupted and compromised during the pandemic in Kenya. Detracted supplies, funding, and technical resources affected the continuity of NCDs' response, despite government efforts. Respondents agreed that the enhanced personnel capacity and competencies to manage COVID-19 patients were positive, but noted a lack of guidance for redirecting care for chronic diseases, and advocated for digital innovation as a solution.
CONCLUSION: this paper explores the perceptions of key stakeholders involved in the management of NCDs in Kenya to improve planning for future emergency responses. Gaps were identified in health system response and preparedness capacity during the pandemic including the perceived need to strengthen NCD services, with solutions offered to guide resilience efforts to protect the health system from disruption.
METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology [PURE] in 135 335 individuals aged 35 to 70 years without cardiovascular disease from 613 communities in 18 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries in seven geographical regions: North America and Europe, South America, the Middle East, south Asia, China, southeast Asia, and Africa. We documented their diet using country-specific food frequency questionnaires at baseline. Standardised questionnaires were used to collect information about demographic factors, socioeconomic status (education, income, and employment), lifestyle (smoking, physical activity, and alcohol intake), health history and medication use, and family history of cardiovascular disease. The follow-up period varied based on the date when recruitment began at each site or country. The main clinical outcomes were major cardiovascular disease (defined as death from cardiovascular causes and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure), fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal strokes, cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, and total mortality. Cox frailty models with random effects were used to assess associations between fruit, vegetable, and legume consumption with risk of cardiovascular disease events and mortality.
FINDINGS: Participants were enrolled into the study between Jan 1, 2003, and March 31, 2013. For the current analysis, we included all unrefuted outcome events in the PURE study database through March 31, 2017. Overall, combined mean fruit, vegetable and legume intake was 3·91 (SD 2·77) servings per day. During a median 7·4 years (5·5-9·3) of follow-up, 4784 major cardiovascular disease events, 1649 cardiovascular deaths, and 5796 total deaths were documented. Higher total fruit, vegetable, and legume intake was inversely associated with major cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, and total mortality in the models adjusted for age, sex, and centre (random effect). The estimates were substantially attenuated in the multivariable adjusted models for major cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74-1·10, ptrend=0·1301), myocardial infarction (0·99, 0·74-1·31; ptrend=0·2033), stroke (0·92, 0·67-1·25; ptrend=0·7092), cardiovascular mortality (0·73, 0·53-1·02; ptrend=0·0568), non-cardiovascular mortality (0·84, 0·68-1·04; ptrend =0·0038), and total mortality (0·81, 0·68-0·96; ptrend<0·0001). The HR for total mortality was lowest for three to four servings per day (0·78, 95% CI 0·69-0·88) compared with the reference group, with no further apparent decrease in HR with higher consumption. When examined separately, fruit intake was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular, non-cardiovascular, and total mortality, while legume intake was inversely associated with non-cardiovascular death and total mortality (in fully adjusted models). For vegetables, raw vegetable intake was strongly associated with a lower risk of total mortality, whereas cooked vegetable intake showed a modest benefit against mortality.
INTERPRETATION: Higher fruit, vegetable, and legume consumption was associated with a lower risk of non-cardiovascular, and total mortality. Benefits appear to be maximum for both non-cardiovascular mortality and total mortality at three to four servings per day (equivalent to 375-500 g/day).
FUNDING: Full funding sources listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).
Methods: Cross-sectional data from 21 countries in the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology study were collected covering 61 229 hypertensive individuals aged 35-70 years, their households and the 656 communities in which they live. Outcomes include whether hypertensive participants have their condition detected, treated and/or controlled. Multivariate statistical models adjusting for community fixed effects were used to assess the associations of three social capital measures: (1) membership of any social organisation, (2) trust in other people and (3) trust in organisations, stratified into high-income and low-income country samples.
Results: In low-income countries, membership of any social organisation was associated with a 3% greater likelihood of having one's hypertension detected and controlled, while greater trust in organisations significantly increased the likelihood of detection by 4%. These associations were not observed among participants in high-income countries.
Conclusion: Although the observed associations are modest, some aspects of social capital are associated with better management of hypertension in low-income countries where health systems are often weak. Given that hypertension affects millions in these countries, even modest gains at all points along the treatment pathway could improve management for many, and translate into the prevention of thousands of cardiovascular events each year.