Late-stage research for diabetes and related NCDs receives little funding: evidence from the NIH RePORTER tool

Global Updates on Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Trends and Attribution of Traditional Risk Factors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The last 2-3 decades have witnessed a decline in age-standardized cardiovascular mortality rates in high-income regions, whereas this has only slightly decreased or even increased in most of the low- and middle-income countries. A systematic comparison of global CVD mortality by regions attributable to various modifiable risk factors such as diabetes, obesity, hypertension, poor diet, and physical inactivity is not available.

RECENT FINDINGS

We present a summary of time trends and heterogeneity in the distribution of global CVD mortality and the attribution of risk factors between 1990 and 2017 using the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study. Globally, an estimated ~ 17.8 million (233.1 per 100,000) people died of CVD in 2017. The rate of CVD death was decreased in high-income countries (1990: 271.8 (95% UI (uncertainty interval), 270.9-273.5); 2017: 128.5 (95% UI, 126.4-130.7) per 100,000)) whereas it remained the same in lower- and middle-income countries (1990: 368.2 (95% UI, 335.6-383.3); 2017: 316.9 (95% UI, 307.0-325.5) per 100,000). Among the various traditional risk factors, high systolic blood pressure, unhealthy diet, high fasting plasma glucose, and high low-density lipoprotein levels were attributed to most of the CVD death and disability-adjusted life year lost. We also observed gender variations in tobacco and increased alcohol consumption. In addition to the traditional risk factors, poor air quality is associated with increased CVD burden in developing countries. Surveillance, country-specific guidelines, evidence-based policies, reinforcement of multisectoral health systems, and innovative solutions are urgently needed in resource-challenged settings to curb CVD risk factors and overall burden.

Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities

Background

Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities is arguably more important than implementation science in resource-rich settings, because resource poverty requires novel solutions to ensure that research results are translated into routine practice and benefit the largest possible number of people.

Methods

We reviewed the role of resources in the extant implementation science frameworks and literature. We analyzed opportunities for implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities, as well as threats to the realization of these opportunities.

Results

Many of the frameworks that provide theoretical guidance for implementation science view resources as contextual factors that are important to (i) predict the feasibility of implementation of research results in routine practice, (ii) explain implementation success and failure, (iii) adapt novel evidence-based practices to local constraints, and (iv) design the implementation process to account for local constraints. Implementation science for resource-poor settings shifts this view from “resources as context” to “resources as primary research object.” We find a growing body of implementation research aiming to discover and test novel approaches to generate resources for the delivery of evidence-based practice in routine care, including approaches to create higher-skilled health workers—through tele-education and telemedicine, freeing up higher-skilled health workers—through task-shifting and new technologies and models of care, and increasing laboratory capacity through new technologies and the availability of medicines through supply chain innovations. In contrast, only few studies have investigated approaches to change the behavior and utilization of healthcare resources in resource-poor settings. We identify three specific opportunities for implementation science in resource-poor settings. First, intervention and methods innovations thrive under constraints. Second, reverse innovation transferring novel approaches from resource-poor to research-rich settings will gain in importance. Third, policy makers in resource-poor countries tend to be open for close collaboration with scientists in implementation research projects aimed at informing national and local policy.

Conclusions

Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities offers important opportunities for future discoveries and reverse innovation. To harness this potential, funders need to strongly support research projects in resource-poor settings, as well as the training of the next generation of implementation scientists working on new ways to create healthcare resources where they lack most and to ensure that those resources are utilized to deliver care that is based on the latest research results.