Inequities in diabetes prevention and control in fragile, conflict-affected and vulnerable settings: a mixed-methods study from the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region
Files
Date
2025-12
Authors
Loffreda, Giulia
Byström, Matilda
El Berri, Hicham
Fouad, Heba
Hag, Eiman
Hammerich, Asmus
Bou-Orm, Ibrahim
Citation
Loffreda, G., Byström, M., El Berri, H., Fouad, H., Hag, E., Hammerich, A. and Bou-Orm, I. (2025) ‘Inequities in diabetes prevention and control in fragile, conflict-affected and vulnerable settings: a mixed-methods study from the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region’, BMJ Open, 15(12), p. e095500. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095500.
Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate progress in the implementation of the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office (EMRO) Regional Framework for Action on Diabetes Prevention and Control, identify implementation barriers and facilitators, and provide recommendations for accelerating progress, with a particular focus on fragile, conflict-affected and vulnerable settings (FCVs).
Design
Mixed-methods study combining secondary analysis of quantitative data from WHO datasets with qualitative synthesis of inputs from WHO consultative meetings with EMR member states.
Setting
22 countries of the WHO EMR, including 10 classified as FCV and 12 as non-FCV according to World Bank and WHO classifications.
Participants
Quantitative data were drawn from the 2021 WHO Country Capacity Survey targeting all EMR countries and other WHO sources. Qualitative data were based on insights from 16 country representatives during a regional WHO EMRO webinar, including non-communicable diseases programme managers, policy leads and WHO country office staff.
Result
Among the 22 countries analysed, only 10% (1/10) of FCVs had a national diabetes action plan compared with 67% (8/12) of non-FCVs. A sugar-sweetened beverage tax was implemented in 75% (9/12) of non-FCVs but in just 10% (1/10) of FCVs. For diabetes management, detailed national guidelines were available in 30% (3/10) of FCVs compared with 83% (10/12) of non-FCVs; insulin was available in primary care in 50% (5/10) of FCVs compared with 83% (10/12) of non-FCVs. Surveillance systems were less robust in FCVs: while 70% (7/10) collected data on diabetes status, only 30% (3/10) had a national diabetes registry, compared with 83% (10/12) of non-FCVs.
Conclusions
Addressing diabetes in the EMR requires strategic collaboration and tailored approaches for FCVs, including strengthened governance, preparedness, integrated care, medication access and surveillance. Prioritising primary healthcare and embedding diabetes prevention and control in universal health coverage and emergency response frameworks is critical to reducing inequities and improving health outcomes in fragile contexts.