ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Health quality management practises for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and obesity care in the UAE: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as cardiovascular diseases (CVD), diabetes, and obesity, are increasingly prevalent in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), driven by lifestyle changes and demographic shifts. This review maps the current research landscape on health quality management (HQM) practises for the three NCDs in the UAE, uniquely analysed through health quality frameworks. Methods: A scoping review of UAE-based studies and grey literature on HQM for the three NCDs (2015-2025), following the Arksey and O'Malley framework and in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, was conducted. A subsequent focused two-dimensional analysis of interventional studies assessed health quality improvement efforts, incorporating guideline documents and reports for policy context. Findings were analysed using the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) six quality domains and the Donabedian model (structure, process, outcomes). Results: Of the identified 549 relevant records, observational studies were predominant, with the majority conducted in larger urban Emirates and focusing on CVD and diabetes. The interventional studies and grey literature documents in the subset analysis largely addressed the effectiveness domain of HQM. Most interventions focused on lifestyle modification through education, digital tools, and multidisciplinary support, with modest clinical improvements observed in most studies. However, study designs were often limited by small sample sizes, the lack of control groups, short durations, and methodological variability. Policy documents emphasised structure and process with limited focus on outcome monitoring. Conclusion: Although intervention research addressing NCDs in the UAE shows promise, it remains methodologically limited and inconsistently distributed across the six HQM domains, with a heavy emphasis on effectiveness and a relative underrepresentation of equity, efficiency, and timeliness, as noted in the reviewed literature. There is a pressing need to implement standardised quality indicators addressing all HQM domains, strengthen cross-sector collaboration, and integrate patient perspectives to translate research progress into equitable, sustainable improvements in NCD care. By integrating health quality frameworks, this review provides a foundation for strengthening NCD care standards in the UAE.
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.