A narrative review of gaps in the provision of integrated care for noncommunicable diseases in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) account for a higher burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCD) and home to a higher number of premature deaths (before age 70) from NCDs. NCDs have become an integral part of the global development agenda; hence, the scope of action on NCDs extends beyond just the health-related sustainable development goal (SDG 3). However, the organization and integration of NCD-related health services have faced several gaps in the LMIC regions such as India. Although the national NCD programme of India has been in operation for a decade, challenges remain in the integration of NCD services at primary care. In this paper, we have analysed existing gaps in the organization and integration of NCD services at primary care and suggested plausible solutions that exist. METHOD: The identification of gaps is based out of a review of peer-reviewed articles, reports on national and global guidelines/protocols. The gaps are organized and narrated at four levels such as community, facility, health system, health policy and research, as per the WHO Innovative Care for Chronic Conditions framework (WHO ICCC). RESULT: The review found that challenges in the identification of eligible beneficiaries, shortage and poor capacity of frontline health workers, poor functioning of community groups and poor community knowledge on NCD risk factors were key gaps at the community level. Challenges at facility level such as poor facility infrastructure, lack of provider knowledge on standards of NCD care and below par quality of care led to poor management of NCDs. At the health system level, we found, organization of care, programme management and monitoring systems were not geared up to address NCDs. Multi-sectoral collaboration and coordination were proposed at the policy level to tackle NCDs; however, gaps remained in implementation of such policies. Limited research on the effect of health promotion, prevention and, in particular, non-medical interventions on NCDs was found as a key gap at the research level. CONCLUSION: This paper reinforces the need for an integrated comprehensive model of NCD care especially at primary health care level to address the growing burden of these diseases. This overarching review is quite relevant and useful in organizing NCD care in Indian and similar LMIC settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".