Affiliations 

  • 1 Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), 33 Ursula Franklin Street, M5S 2S1, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • 2 Medical Service Department, International SOS, Jl. Pangeran Antasari No. 10, Cipete, 12410, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • 3 Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, 420/1 Ratchawithi Road, Thung Phaya Thai, Ratchathewi, 10400, Bangkok, Thailand
  • 4 Institute of Nutrition, Mahidol University, 999 Phutthamonthon sai 4, 73170, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand. graphkodomo@gmail.com
  • 5 KHANA Center for Population Health Research, #33, street 71, Tonle Bassac, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
  • 6 Department of Epidemiology and Statistic, University of Health Science, Ban Kaoyot, Samsenthai Rd., Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR
  • 7 Disease Control Division, Ministry of Health, Putrajaya, Malaysia
  • 8 Department of Public Health, Ministry of Health and Sports, Naypyidaw, Myanmar
  • 9 Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP), Division of Epidemiology, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Mueang Nonthaburi, Thailand
  • 10 Non-Communicable Diseases Control Division, General Department of Preventive Medicine, Viet Nam Ministry of Health, Hanoi, Viet Nam
BMC Public Health, 2023 Feb 07;23(1):272.
PMID: 36750861 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-15165-1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To tackle noncommunicable disease (NCD) burden globally, two sets of NCD surveillance indicators were established by the World Health Organization: 25 Global Monitoring Framework (GMF) indicators and 10 Progress Monitoring Indicators (PMI). This study aims to assess the data availability of these two sets of indicators in six ASEAN countries: Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam.

METHODS: As data on policy indicators were straightforward and fully available, we focused on studying 25 non-policy indicators: 23 GMFs and 2 PMIs. Gathering data availability of the target indicators was conducted among NCD surveillance experts from the six selected countries during May-June 2020. Our research team found information regarding whether the country had no data at all, was using WHO estimates, was providing 'expert judgement' for the data, or had actual data available for each target indicator. We triangulated their answers with several WHO data sources, including the WHO Health Observatory Database and various WHO Global Reports on health behaviours (tobacco, alcohol, diet, and physical activity) and NCDs. We calculated the percentages of the indicators that need improvement by both indicator category and country.

RESULTS: For all six studied countries, the health-service indicators, based on responses to the facility survey, are the most lacking in data availability (100% of this category's indicators), followed by the health-service indicators, based on the population survey responses (57%), the mortality and morbidity indicators (50%), the behavioural risk indicators (30%), and the biological risk indicators (7%). The countries that need to improve their NCD surveillance data availability the most are Cambodia (56% of all indicators) and Lao PDR (56%), followed by Malaysia (36%), Vietnam (36%), Myanmar (32%), and Thailand (28%).

CONCLUSION: Some of the non-policy GMF and PMI indicators lacked data among the six studied countries. To achieve the global NCDs targets, in the long run, the six countries should collect their own data for all indicators and begin to invest in and implement the facility survey and the population survey to track NCDs-related health services improvements once they have implemented the behavioural and biological Health Risks Population Survey in their countries.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.