Quality of stroke guidelines in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify gaps in national stroke guidelines that could be bridged to enhance the quality of stroke care services in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We systematically searched medical databases and websites of medical societies and contacted international organizations. Country-specific guidelines on care and control of stroke in any language published from 2010 to 2020 were eligible for inclusion. We reviewed each included guideline for coverage of four key components of stroke services (surveillance, prevention, acute care and rehabilitation). We also assessed compliance with the eight Institute of Medicine standards for clinical practice guidelines, the ease of implementation of guidelines and plans for dissemination to target audiences. FINDINGS: We reviewed 108 eligible guidelines from 47 countries, including four low-income, 24 middle-income and 19 high-income countries. Globally, fewer of the guidelines covered primary stroke prevention compared with other components of care, with none recommending surveillance. Guidelines on stroke in low- and middle-income countries fell short of the required standards for guideline development; breadth of target audience; coverage of the four components of stroke services; and adaptation to socioeconomic context. Fewer low- and middle-income country guidelines demonstrated transparency than those from high-income countries. Less than a quarter of guidelines encompassed detailed implementation plans and socioeconomic considerations. CONCLUSION: Guidelines on stroke in low- and middle-income countries need to be developed in conjunction with a wider category of health-care providers and stakeholders, with a full spectrum of translatable, context-appropriate interventions.

Gaps in Guidelines for the Management of Diabetes in Low- and Middle-Income Versus High-Income Countries-A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The extent to which diabetes (DM) practice guidelines, often based on evidence from high-income countries (HIC), can be implemented to improve outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is a critical challenge. We carried out a systematic review to compare type 2 DM guidelines in individual LMIC versus HIC over the past decade to identify aspects that could be improved to facilitate implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eligible guidelines were sought from online databases and websites of diabetes associations and ministries of health. Type 2 DM guidelines published between 2006 and 2016 with accessible full publications were included. Each of the 54 eligible guidelines was assessed for compliance with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards, coverage of the cardiovascular quadrangle (epidemiologic surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation), translatability, and its target audiences. RESULTS: Most LMIC guidelines were inadequate in terms of applicability, clarity, and dissemination plan as well as socioeconomic and ethical-legal contextualization. LMIC guidelines targeted mainly health care providers, with only a few including patients (7%), payers (11%), and policy makers (18%) as their target audiences. Compared with HIC guidelines, the spectrum of DM clinical care addressed by LMIC guidelines was narrow. Most guidelines from the LMIC complied with less than half of the IOM standards, with 12% of the LMIC guidelines satisfying at least four IOM criteria as opposed to 60% of the HIC guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A new approach to the contextualization, content development, and delivery of LMIC guidelines is needed to improve outcomes.