Methods: We searched seven databases up to July 2020 for randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of telemedicine in the delivery of diabetes care in low- and middle-income countries. We extracted data on the study characteristics, primary end-points and effect sizes of outcomes. Using random effects analyses, we ran a series of meta-analyses for both biochemical outcomes and related patient properties.
Findings: We included 31 interventions in our meta-analysis. We observed significant standardized mean differences of -0.38 for glycated haemoglobin (95% confidence interval, CI: -0.52 to -0.23; I2 = 86.70%), -0.20 for fasting blood sugar (95% CI: -0.32 to -0.08; I2 = 64.28%), 0.81 for adherence to treatment (95% CI: 0.19 to 1.42; I2 = 93.75%), 0.55 for diabetes knowledge (95% CI: -0.10 to 1.20; I2 = 92.65%) and 1.68 for self-efficacy (95% CI: 1.06 to 2.30; I2 = 97.15%). We observed no significant treatment effects for other outcomes, with standardized mean differences of -0.04 for body mass index (95% CI: -0.13 to 0.05; I2 = 35.94%), -0.06 for total cholesterol (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.04; I2 = 59.93%) and -0.02 for triglycerides (95% CI: -0.12 to 0.09; I2 = 0%). Interventions via telephone and short message service yielded the highest treatment effects compared with services based on telemetry and smartphone applications.
Conclusion: Although we determined that telemedicine is effective in improving several diabetes-related outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low due to substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias.
Methods: Data were collected during household surveys conducted between 2016 and 2020 in the five surveillance sites in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Viet Nam. We defined hypertension as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg or taking blood pressure-lowering medication. We defined hypertension control as systolic blood pressure
METHODS: We conducted cognitive interviews (n = 645) in three iterative waves of data collection across 19 countries during March 2022-March 2023, with participants of diverse sex, gender, age and geography. Interviewers used a semi-structured field guide to elicit narratives from participants about their questionnaire item interpretation and response processes. Local study teams completed data analysis frameworks, and we conducted joint analysis meetings between data collection waves to identify question failures.
FINDINGS: Overall, we observed that participants were willing to respond to even the most sensitive questionnaire items on sexual biography and practices. We identified issues with the original questionnaire that (i) affected the willingness (acceptability) and ability (knowledge barriers) of participants to respond fully; and/or (ii) prevented participants from interpreting the questions as intended, including poor wording (source question error), cultural portability and very rarely translation error. Our revisions included adjusting item order and wording, adding preambles and implementation guidance, and removing items with limited cultural portability.
CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that a questionnaire exploring sexual practices, experiences and health-related outcomes can be comprehensible and acceptable by the general population in diverse global contexts, and have highlighted the importance of rigorous processes for the translation and cognitive testing of such a questionnaire.