Research

Clinicians in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) often deviate from care guidelines and under-deliver high-value preventive care. Focusing on hypertension screening, we investigate several explanations for under-delivery using a randomized experiment with standardized patients (SPs). Across 600 clinics in two major Indian cities, we found that nearly half of clinicians failed to screen SPs - even though screening is highly cost-effective and universally recommended by Indian guidelines. We did not find evidence that under-screening was driven by an absence of resources such as equipment and staff or a lack of clinicians’ knowledge on how to screen for hypertension. Our results also suggest that time pressure or clinicians’ personal judgment on which patients should be screened does not drive screening rates. However, we find notable differences in care between public and private facilities, with private facilities screening significantly more often. Overall, we find that conventional explanations for under-delivery - such as screening knowledge, resources, or time pressure - may not be the prime drivers of inadequate preventive care provision in the Indian setting. Rather, our results suggest that clinician effort in India is highly influenced by provider care environments and incentive structures.

Regular follow-up visits are a crucial component of prevention and care for several important non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Yet evidence across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) reveals low demand for preventive healthcare visits. While reminders are commonly used to improve follow-up attendance, we hypothesized that low demand could also be driven by misconceptions about the need for preventive care. We thus conducted a randomized evaluation of an enhanced reminder intervention that combined a traditional reminder with debunking information aimed at correcting misconceptions around preventive healthcare. We focused specifically on correcting misconceptions about and improving follow-up visit attendance for hypertension among a sample of 463 individuals with uncontrolled blood pressure recruited from two public hospitals in Punjab, India. We found that participants assigned to receive the enhanced reminder were 12.1 percentage points more likely to attend their follow-up when compared to the control group. Importantly, we found widespread misconceptions about when hypertension care and treatment are needed among participants at baseline. However, our enhanced reminder was not successful at correcting misconceptions, suggesting that the reminder's effect was mediated through its effect on salience and not through belief updating. While our reminder improved preventive care seeking, the results reveal the challenge of changing deeply rooted misconceptions and suggest that there is still significant scope for further improving demand by combining reminders with more effective belief-updating strategies.

A substantial share of patients at risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) fail to achieve control of CVD risk factors, but clinicians lack a structured approach to identify these patients. We applied machine learning to longitudinal data from two completed randomized controlled trials among 1502 individuals with diabetes in urban India and Pakistan. Using commonly available clinical data, we predict each individual’s risk of failing to achieve CVD risk factor control goals or meaningful improvements in risk factors at one year after baseline. When classifying those in the top quartile of predicted risk scores as at risk of failing to achieve goals or meaningful improvements, the precision for not achieving goals was 73% for HbA1c, 30% for SBP, and 24% for LDL, and for not achieving meaningful improvements 88% for HbA1c, 87% for SBP, and 85% for LDL. Such models could be integrated into routine care and enable efficient and targeted delivery of health resources in resource-constrained settings.

Managing hypertension is a highly dynamic process, yet current evidence on hypertension control in middle-income countries (MICs) is largely based on cross-sectional data. Using multiple waves of population-based cohort data from four MICs (China, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa), we undertook a longitudinal investigation into how individuals with hypertension move through care over time. We classified adults aged 40 years and over (N = 8527) into care stages at both baseline and follow-up waves and estimated the probability of transitioning between stages using Poisson regression models. Over a 5- to 9-year follow-up period, only around 30% of undiagnosed individuals became diagnosed [Mexico, 27% (95% confidence interval: 23%, 31%); China, 30% (26%, 33%); Indonesia, 30% (28%, 32%); and South Africa, 36% (31%, 41%)], and one in four untreated individuals became treated [Indonesia, 11% (10%, 12%); Mexico, 24% (20%, 28%); China, 26% (23%, 29%); and South Africa, 33% (29%, 38%)]. The probability of reaching blood pressure (BP) control was lower [Indonesia, 2% (1%, 2%); China, 9% (7%, 11%); Mexico, 12% (9%, 14%); and South Africa, 24% (20%, 28%)] regardless of treatment status. A substantial proportion of individuals discontinued treatment [Indonesia, 70% (67%, 73%); China, 36% (32%, 40%); Mexico, 34% (29%, 39%); and South Africa, 20% (15%, 25%)], and most individuals lost BP control by follow-up [Indonesia, 92% (89%, 96%); Mexico, 77% (71%, 83%); China, 76% (69%, 83%); and South Africa 45% (36%, 54%)]. Our results highlight that policies solely aimed at improving diagnosis or initiating treatment may not lead to long-term hypertension control improvements in MICs.

There is low civil society mobilization for NCD policies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) despite a growing NCD burden. While existing research explains low mobilization largely through constraints such as inadequate funding and capacity at the organizational level, we explore the issue from the perspective of people living with NCDs and ask how lay understandings of hypertension may inform potential mobilization for multisectoral policy actions by people living with hypertension. To explore this question, we develop a theoretical framework that casts mobilization as a function of people's recognition of disease importance, attribution of NCD risk factors to government policies, beliefs about who bears responsibility for NCD prevention and management, and beliefs around efficacy of multisectoral policies. We present findings from 45 semi-structured interviews with people living with hypertension in a qualitative study in Chennai, India. Our thematic analysis reveals that respondents can dedicate limited time and resources to actions around hypertension. People living with hypertension also strongly internalize responsibility for developing and managing their condition and focus primarily on achieving lifestyle changes. Instead of demanding multisectoral policy action around hypertension, respondents recommend that government actions focus on measures that enable their lifestyle changes, such as increasing awareness and health care capacities, and express doubts about the efficacy of government policies. Our findings expand existing theories around mobilization by revealing how people's own understanding of their illness, its risk factors and their underlying drivers, as well as their perception of challenges in NCD policy making can present barriers to mobilization around multisectoral policies. Theory on health social movements would benefit from a deeper integration of individual perspectives and a closer consideration of the specific challenges of living with NCDs given the local context.