CC BY 3.0 IGO Attribution 3.0 IGOLoffreda, GiuliaByström, MatildaEl Berri, HichamFouad, HebaHag, EimanHammerich, AsmusBou-Orm, Ibrahim2025-12-032025-12Loffreda, 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-2024-095500.2044-60552044-6055https://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/14518https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095500Giulia Loffreda - ORCID: 0000-0003-4895-1051 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4895-1051Ibrahim Bou-Orm - ORCID: 0000-0003-3563-4014 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3563-4014Objectives 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.e095500en© World Health Organization 2025. Licensee BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License (CC BY 3.0 IGO), which permits use, distribution,and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article’s original URL.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/Article10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095500