ArticlePloS one2025
Assessment of community knowledge on non-communicable diseases to inform the pilot of WHO PEN-Plus initiatives in selected two districts in Tanzania.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stakeholders' perspectives on the management and prevention of non-communicable diseases in rural Tanzania: SWOC analysis prior to PEN Plus implementation.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) have increased significantly in Tanzania, accounting for 33% of mortality in the country. Having adequate knowledge translated into practice has a significant effect on the health of individuals through adoption of positive behaviours and influencing better health seeking behaviours. For those already affected by NCDs, it promotes secondary and tertiary prevention by helping them effectively cope with the disease. In this study, we aimed to determine the level and determinants of NCDs knowledge in the community to inform the implementation of WHO PEN- Plus initiatives.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2023 involving 528 adults aged 25-64 years from two purposely selected districts and 11, 22 and 528 randomly selected wards, villages, and households respectively. Information on socio-economic, demographic, NCDs knowledge were collected from each participant. Chi-square test and Modified Poisson Regression were applied to assess the association and determinants of NCDs knowledge level.
resultsThe median age of study participants was 40.5 years. Less than half 42.6%(n=225) were aware of the term NCD and less than one third were aware of the NCD conditions such as Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) 15.3%(n=70), Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) 25.2%(n=133), Rheumatic fever 28.6%(n=151) and Heart failure 33.1%(n=175). Good level of awareness was reported on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) 79.5%(n=364). More than three quarters of the respondents had low knowledge on T1DM (90.3%), SCD (84.1%), Rheumatic fever (81.3%), NCDs (80.5%) and Heart failure (76.1%). Furthermore, more than half (56.4%) of respondents had low knowledge for T2DM. Adjusted analysis indicated that, for all NCDs except SCD, low knowledge was significantly associated with the district of residence (Kondoa). Low knowledge of NCDs, T2DM, and SCD was significantly associated with having no education, or having only primary or secondary education. Individuals from the lowest, second, middle, and fourth socio-economic status families were significantly associated with low knowledge of NCDs, while the lowest and fourth socio-economic status levels were associated with low knowledge of T2DM and SCD.
conclusionLow knowledge was observed for all NCDs conditions and socio-economic and demographic characteristics were associated with low knowledge. Interventions to increase NCDs knowledge should consider the socio-economic determinants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.