4.3 Article

Delivery of Type 2 diabetes care in low- and middle-income countries: lessons from Lima, Peru

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 752-760

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dme.13099

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alliance for Healthy Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization [HQHSR1206660]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims The health system's response is crucial to addressing the increasing burden of diabetes, particularly that affecting low- and middle-income countries. This study aims to assess the facilitators and barriers that help or hinder access to care for people with diabetes in Peru. Methods We used a survey tool to design and collect qualitative and quantitative data from primary and secondary sources of information at different levels of the health system. We performed 111 interviews in Lima, the capital city of Peru, with patients with diabetes, healthcare providers and healthcare officials. We applied the six building blocks framework proposed by the World Health Organization in our analysis. Results We found low political commitment, as well as several barriers that directly affect access to medicines, regular laboratory check-ups and follow-up appointments for diabetes, especially at the primary healthcare level. Three major system-level barriers were identified: (1) the availability of information at different healthcare system levels that affects several processes in the healthcare provision; (2) insufficient financial resources; and (3) insufficient human resources trained in diabetes management. Conclusion Despite an initial political commitment by the Peruvian government to improve the delivery of diabetes care, there exist several key limitations that affect access to adequate diabetes care, especially at the primary healthcare level. In a context in which various low-and middle-income countries are aiming to achieve universal health coverage, this study provides lessons for the implementation of strategies related to diabetes care delivery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据