↓ Skip to main content

Primary and secondary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of economic evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Primary and secondary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of economic evaluations
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12962-018-0108-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leopold Ndemnge Aminde, Noah Fongwen Takah, Belen Zapata-Diomedi, J. Lennert Veerman

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of deaths globally, with greatest premature mortality in the low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Many of these countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, have significant budget constraints. The need for current evidence on which interventions offer good value for money to stem this CVD epidemic motivates this study. In this systematic review, we included studies reporting full economic evaluations of individual and population-based interventions (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic), for primary and secondary prevention of CVD among adults in LMIC. Several medical (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science) and economic (EconLit, NHS EED) databases and grey literature were searched. Screening of studies and data extraction was done independently by two reviewers. Drummond's checklist and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality rating scale were used in the quality appraisal for all studies used to inform this evidence synthesis. From a pool of 4059 records, 94 full texts were read and 50 studies, which met our inclusion criteria, were retained for our narrative synthesis. Most of the studies were from middle-income countries and predominantly of high quality. The majority were modelled evaluations, and there was significant heterogeneity in methods. Primary prevention studies dominated secondary prevention. Most of the economic evaluations were performed for pharmacological interventions focusing on blood pressure, cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet aggregants. The greatest majority were cost-effective. Compared to individual-based interventions, population-based interventions were few and mostly targeted reduction in sodium intake and tobacco control strategies. These were very cost-effective with many being cost-saving. This evidence synthesis provides a contemporary update on interventions that offer good value for money in LMICs. Population-based interventions especially those targeting reduction in salt intake and tobacco control are very cost-effective in LMICs with potential to generate economic gains that can be reinvested to improve health and/or other sectors. While this evidence is relevant for policy across these regions, decision makers should additionally take into account other multi-sectoral perspectives, including considerations in budget impact, fairness, affordability and implementation while setting priorities for resource allocation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 27%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 27 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,786,683
of 13,099,076 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#136
of 221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,241
of 270,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,099,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them