Assessment on the capacity for prevention and control programs for chronic non-communicable diseases in China, in 2014.
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2019.02.020
- VernacularTitle:2014年中国慢性非传染性疾病预防控制能力评估
- Author:
X SI
1
;
Y ZHAI
2
;
X L ZHU
1
;
J X MA
1
Author Information
1. Division of Chronic Disease Control and Community Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 102206, China.
2. China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tian Tan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100070, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Capacity;
Chronic non-communicable disease;
Control;
Prevention
- MeSH:
China;
Chronic Disease/prevention & control*;
Community Health Services/organization & administration*;
Health Planning Organizations/organization & administration*;
Humans;
Noncommunicable Diseases/prevention & control*;
Public Health;
Risk Factors;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Workforce
- From:
Chinese Journal of Epidemiology
2019;40(2):231-236
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To assess the capacity of prevention and control on chronic non- communicable diseases (NCDs) in China. Methods: On-line questionnaire survey was adopted by 3 395 CDCs at provincial, municipal and county (district) levels and 3 000 primary health care units, and assess on capacity of policy, infrastructure, capacity of training and guidance, cooperation, surveillance, intervention and management, assessment and scientific research from September 2014 to March 2015. Results: (1) Capacity of policy: 23 (71.9%) provincial, 139 (40.6%) municipal and 919 (31.2%) county (district) governments or health administrative departments had existing plans for prevention and control of NCDs. (2) Capacity of infrastructure: 25 (78.1%) provincial, 136 (39.8%) municipal and 529 (18.0%) county (district) CDCs had set up departments dedicated to the prevention and control of NCDs, with 9 787 staff members, accounting for 5.0% of the total CDC personnel, working on NCDs prevention and control programs. 68.1% of the CDCs had special funding set for NCDs prevention and control. (3) Capacity of training and guidance: 2 485 CDCs (74.9%) held all kinds of training on prevention and control of NCDs. 2 571 (87.3%) CDCs at the county (district) level provided technical guidance for primary health care units. (4) Capacity of cooperation: 42.0% of the CDCs had experiences collaborating with the mass media. (5) Capacity of surveillance: 73.8% of the CDCs had set up programs for death registration while less than 50.0% of the CDCs had implemented surveillance programs on major NCDs and related risk factors. In terms of primary health care units, 32.4% of them had set up reporting system for newly developed stroke case and 29.9% of them having programs on myocardial infarction case reporting. (6) Capacity of intervention and management: 69.1% and 68.2% of the CDCs conducted individualized intervention programs on hypertension and diabetes, while less than 40.0% CDCs conducting intervention programs on other NCDs and risk factors. More than 90.0% of the primary health care units carried out follow-up surveys on hypertension and diabetes. However, only 17.4% and 13.7% of the CDCs working on hypertension and diabetes patient management programs while 83.7% and 80.4%, of them following the standardized guidelines for management, with successful rates of control as 59.2% and 55.2%, respectively. (7) Capacity of assessment: 32.4% of the CDCs or health administrations carried out evaluation programs related to the responses on NCDs. (8) Capacity of scientific research: the capacity on scientific research among provincial CDCs was apparently higher than that at the municipal or county (district) CDCs. Conclusions: Compared with the results of previous two surveys, the capacity on policies set for the prevention and control programs improved continuously, at all level NCDs, but remained relatively weak, especially at both county (district) and primary health care units.
