ReviewHealth science reports2026
A Scoping Review of Noncommunicable Disease Programs Evaluation: Bridging Gaps and Improving Frameworks in Primary Healthcare.
Review in Health science reports, 2026. 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.
- A Scoping Review of Noncommunicable Disease Programs Evaluation: Bridging Gaps and Improving Frameworks in Primary Healthcare.Health science reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Effective evaluation is critical for improving non-communicable disease (NCD) programs. This scoping review explores evaluation methods at the primary healthcare (PHC) level, examines the evaluation process, maps key dimensions and indicators, and identifies related challenges. Materials and Methods: The present review was conducted based on PRISMA-ScR and the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We systematically searched Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, Emerald, Google Scholar, and relevant websites for studies published from January 2000 to January 2023. Eligible studies were selected using predefined criteria, and data were managed and synthesized using EndNote 8.1 and MAXQDA 2020. Results: A total of 50 studies were included, with most using observational studies ( Conclusion: This review offers an in-depth synthesis of evaluation methodologies applied to NCD programs within the primary healthcare context. The majority of evaluations predominantly utilized observational, cross-sectional study designs, with a primary focused on cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and hypertension, whereas conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cancer received comparatively limited attention. Evaluations mainly targeted public-sector programs and service-provider perspectives. In low- and middle-income countries, studies often relied on external funding and evaluators. Evaluation efforts often prioritized outputs over inputs and processes and were further constrained by limited information systems, workforce shortages, budget limitations, and inadequate evaluation frameworks. Collectively, these findings emphasize the imperative for methodological diversification, inclusive engagement of a broader range of stakeholders, and enhancement of domestic evaluation capacities to establish more robust, comprehensive, and sustainable frameworks for monitoring and assessing NCD programs.
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.