Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42597592›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in health services2026

Using implementation science for WHO noncommunicable disease technical packages in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Ishu Kataria, Lillian Morrell, Gavin Allman, Giulia Loffreda, Tiina Laatikainen, J Jaime Miranda, Yodi Mahendradhata, Rachel Nugent

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in health services, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ishu KatariaRTI International, New Delhi, India.
Lillian MorrellRTI International, Durham, NC, United States.
Gavin AllmanRTI International, Durham, NC, United States.
Giulia LoffredaAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Tiina LaatikainenSchool of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
J Jaime MirandaCRONICAS Centre of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru.
Yodi MahendradhataFaculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Rachel NugentUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) created technical packages to support countries in preventing and treating noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). While these packages provide evidence-informed guidance for prevention, detection, and management of NCDs, little is known about how implementation science concepts and methods have been used in their adoption and scale-up in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This scoping review examines how implementation and dissemination science have been used across WHO NCD technical packages and the extent to which these efforts align with national NCD strategies. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (2009-2023) on the implementation or adaptation of WHO technical packages for the prevention and control of NCDs, in LMICs. Eight databases were searched. Data were extracted on use of implementation frameworks, barriers and facilitators, stakeholder engagement, capacity-building strategies, implementation outcomes, and sustainability. Findings were organized using domains aligned with the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) framework. Results: and discussion: Fifty-seven studies from 27 LMICs met inclusion criteria. Most examined PEN or PEN-Plus, followed by HEARTS and MPOWER. Only one study explicitly applied a formal implementation science framework, and few explicitly reported using a conceptual mode or framework to guide implementation or evaluation. Stakeholder engagement was described inconsistently and mostly limited to providers and programme managers. Barriers reported commonly related to limited medicines, diagnostics, workforce capacity, and weak information systems, while facilitators included standardized protocols, team-based care, and use of decision-support tools. Capacity-building efforts centred on training, tools, and technical assistance, with minimal use of incentives. Implementation outcomes were primarily measured at the patient or facility level, whereas sustainability was rarely assessed. Few studies examined links between technical package implementation and national NCD action plans or monitoring frameworks. Despite growing uptake of WHO technical packages in LMICs, implementation science remains underutilized and applied inconsistently. Limited use of formal frameworks, weak integration with national policy processes, and scarce assessment of sustainability constrain the implementation and adaptation of these packages to deliver long-term impact. Strengthening structured implementation approaches, investing in research and system capacity, and embedding implementation science within policy cycles are critical to accelerating and sustaining progress on NCDs in LMICs.

Indexed as

ERICimplementation scienceLMICsnoncommunicable diseasesWHO technical package

Identifiers

PMID42597592
PMCPMC13470048

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.