↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 198 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 70 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 88 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 April 2023.
All research outputs
#5,775,535
of 23,901,621 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#180
of 445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,374
of 331,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,901,621 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 331,572 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.