Barriers and Facilitators in Access to Diabetes, Hypertension, and Dyslipidemia Medicines: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Objective: Identify barriers and facilitators in access to medicines for diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, considering patient, health provider, and health system perspectives. Methods: Scoping review based on Joanna Briggs methodology. The search considered PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Academic Search Ultimate, Web of Science, SciELO Citation Index, and grey literature. Two researchers conducted screening and eligibility phases. Data were thematically analyzed. Results: The review included 219 documents. Diabetes was the most studied condition; most of the evidence comes from patients and the United States. Affordability and availability of medicines were the most reported dimension and specific barrier respectively, both cross-cutting concerns. Among high- and middle-income countries, identified barriers were cost of medicines, accompaniment by professionals, long distances to facilities, and cultural aspects; cost of transportation emerges in low-income settings. Facilitators reported were financial accessibility, trained health workers, medicines closer to communities, and patients’ education. Conclusion: Barriers and facilitators are determined by socioeconomic and cultural conditions, highlighting the role of health systems in regulatory and policy context (assuring financial coverage and free medicines); providers’ role bringing medicines closer; and patients’ health education and disease management.

Introduction

Cardiovascular diseases remain the first cause of death worldwide, representing 32% of all global deaths in 2019 [1]. Conditions such as hypertension [2], diabetes [3], and dyslipidemia [4] are among the most prevalent risk factors for their development.

The treatment of these three conditions provides a convenient entry point to control other non-communicable diseases (NCDs) [5]. They share commonalities in delivery of services and model of care (e.g., continuous monitoring, multidisciplinary treatment team, importance of diet), also share the importance of pharmacotherapy [6, 7] and achieving patient adherence to control them [8].

Equitable access to medicines for these risk factors is crucial to reduce the burden of NCD [9, 10]. For instance, providing medicines at primary care level [11] has shown as an effective approach to reduce blood-pressure-related NCDs deaths. Moreover, the universal health coverage Sustainable Development Goal requires access to safe, adequate quality, and affordable medicines [12, 13]. However, even when low-cost and generic drugs are available to treat NCDs, many patients cannot access [10].

Access to health care in general has been defined as “the opportunity to reach and obtain appropriate health care services in situations of perceived need for care” [14]. Following this framework, Koh et al. [7] frame access to medicines as the interaction of accessibility and ability (to perceive, seek, reach, pay, engage), in a process that goes from medication need to medication utilization. In long-term therapies, access to appropriate medicines affects patients’ adherence [7], which is key for successfully treating these types of conditions [15].

Access to medicines is a complex concept that includes the dimensions of availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, and acceptability [16, 17]. They can become barriers or facilitators, challenging the health system’s capacity, and hindering people’s ability to obtain the medication they need to maintain or improve their health [18]. Because these barriers are complex and interconnected, access to medicines should be tackled from a health system perspective, considering access constraints at different levels (individual, household and community; health service delivery; health sector; public policies cutting across sectors; and international and regional level), and both demand- and supply-side constraints [19].

Health policy would benefit from systematic information on the scope of common and specific barriers and facilitators in access to medicines for treating diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Isolated evidence exists about barriers and facilitators faced by patients or from the perspective of health providers, but no evidence was identified that systematizes the findings [20–29]. In addition, no current or ongoing scoping or systematic reviews on the topic were identified. Considering the importance of these three conditions in the global disease burden, updated evidence that systematizes the various findings related to access to medicines to treat such conditions is essential to visualize the entire phenomenon comprehensively, to guide articulated strategies and effective health solutions.

The objective of this scoping review is to comprehensively map and summarize knowledge related to the identification of barriers and facilitators in access to medicines, worldwide, for diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, considering patient, health care provider, and health system perspectives.

Methods

The scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews [30] and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [31].

Review Question

What are the barriers and facilitators in access to medicines for the treatment of diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia from the perspectives of patients, health care providers, and the health system?

Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria were based on the components of the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) method of JBI [30]. See Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 Inclusion criteria based on PCC method for scoping reviews (Chile, 2022). (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Population

Focused on patients requiring medication for essential diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or dyslipidemia, health care providers treating patients with these conditions, or the health system’s perspective (health systems factors, interventions, policies, or programs) regarding access to these medications.

Concept

Barriers or facilitators to access to medicines for the treatment of essential diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or dyslipidemia were reviewed. Under the conceptual frameworks by Tanahashi [16], and Penchansky and Thomas [17], the access dimensions included were: availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, and acceptability. Studies related to recreational drugs and medications in animals were excluded since these topics are far from the focus of the study. Furthermore, adherence to medications was not included because patient adherence is related to disease management rather than to access to medicines.

Context

Studies conducted in any country or setting, including hospitals, primary care facilities, community health services, other health services, and either rural or urban settings.

Data Sources and Search Strategy

The following biomedical databases were consulted: PubMed (NCBI), Cochrane Library (free access by Ministry of Health, Chile), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCO), Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Web of Science (Clarivate), and SciELO Citation Index (Clarivate). Grey literature was searched in the OpenGrey database and through homepages of the following international organizations: World Health Organization (WHO), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). A hand search was also performed in the World Bank databases.

This review considered all types of scientific articles and grey literature (manuals, technical papers, scientific conferences reports, recommendations, reports, and policy briefs).

To identify relevant studies, an experienced biomedical librarian (AJS) and two researchers trained in public health/epidemiology (MH and OU) searched the literature based on the stages recommended by the JBI [32]. Firstly, an initial limited pilot study search was conducted in PubMed (MH and AJS) using keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms associated with “drugs,” “access barriers,” “access facilitators,” “diabetes,” “arterial hypertension,” “dyslipidemia,” “hypercholesterolemia,” and “metabolic syndrome.” This search strategy was conducted in the other databases, verifying the consistency of results to the research question. Secondly, the keywords identified in the relevant articles of the initial search were used to develop the complete planned search strategy (see Appendix).

A language filter was applied to exclude all studies or documents available in languages other than English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, and only studies in humans were included. There was no restriction of publication year considered. Finally, a hand search of reference lists of relevant articles identified in the final search was conducted (Reference review or Backward citation).

The information search strategy for the full review was carried out on 27 January 2020, in the case of indexed literature, and 28 February, 12 March, and 29 April 2020, for grey literature.

Following the search, reference management software (Mendeley) was used to download and manage the reference database. Additionally, the search results were managed using Microsoft Excel, by creating separate sheets for the various stages of the search and review process.

The titles and abstracts resulting from the search (identification phase) were independently screened by two reviewers from the research team (CC-L, IM, MH-A, OU, XM, CA, CF-M, SP-L, FD-R, TR, and BP), selecting full-text articles or reports for the eligibility phase, in which the texts were reviewed by two independent reviewers. Disagreement, in any of these two phases, was resolved by consulting a third reviewer. It should be noted that five of the reviewers have extensive experience in public health research and epidemiology, as well as experience in literature reviews.

Once the titles and abstracts to be included were selected, the full text was searched and obtained through free access, requested from the head of the Biomedical Library of our University (AJS), or purchased. The entire selection process was diagrammed in a flow chart identifying each stage (identification, screening, and eligibility), the number of results and eliminations at each stage, and the reason for their exclusion.

Data Extraction

Relevant data extraction from selected studies was performed according to Peters et al. [32]. The research team piloted and executed the extraction process. The pilot allowed the researchers to test the designed matrix and adjust it according to the feedback obtained from this phase. In addition, it allowed the criteria to be standardized for the final data extraction. Once the extraction was completed, three researchers (CC-L, IM, MH-A) conducted a review of this stage, validating each of the barriers and facilitators extracted from the documents and adjusting when necessary.

Data were compiled in a single spreadsheet, containing the articles’ main characteristics, along with specific aspects of the research question of this review. Data extraction categories included: author(s), date, title, journal, volume, issue, pages, year of publication, country, aims/purpose, study population and sample size, methodology/methods, intervention type, comparison, outcomes, and key findings that relate to this scoping review question.

Analysis and Presentation of Results

Data from the selected studies and documents were synthesized by three researchers (CC-L, IM, MH-A) through an iterative process, according to the research question.

To summarize the data, descriptive statistics were calculated on the general aspects of the documents and on the barriers and facilitators identified. Also, a qualitative description and an analysis of these barriers and facilitators was included. Finally, the data characterization enabled gaps in knowledge to be identified [33].

Results

Overview

The search identified 1,844 studies, from which 219 records were finally included in the scoping review (198 indexed literature and 30 grey literature) (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2 Flow chart of study selection for scoping review process (Chile, 2022). WOS, Web of Science; WHO, World Health Organization; PAHO, Pan American Health Organization; OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Of the total publications with a study design (189 indexed literature, 1 grey literature), 32.1% were cross-sectional (n = 61), qualitative (n = 47, 24.7%), “report, review or discussion article” (16.3%, n = 31), cohort (6.3%, n = 12), mixed method (5.8%, n = 11) and literature review (4.7%, n = 9) (Table 1). Nine of the 30 selected grey literature documents (30%) were country reports, while eight and six were technical and regional reports respectively (26.7% and 20%), and the remaining documents were policy report, recommendations (10%, n = 3), and a PhD thesis (3.3%, n = 1).

Participants

Based on the PCC model, the target populations of the 219 publications were: 44.3% patients only, 15.5% patients and health care providers, 14.6% patients, providers and the health care system, 11.4% only health system, 7.3% only health care providers, 3.2% health system and providers together. Regarding the conditions studied, of 219 results, 78.5% addressed diabetes, 48.4% hypertension and 11.4% dyslipidemia (Table 1).

Context

The studied countries classified by income and region respectively, according to the World Bank classification [34], are presented in Supplementary Tables S2, S3. Out of the 219 publications, 68% could be classified by income: 38% (n = 84) in the context of high-income countries (HIC), 13% (n = 29) in upper middle-income economies (UMIC), 14% in lower middle-income (LMIC), and 2% low-income (LIC). The most studied region was North America (31.5%) with 69 publications, of which the United States (US) had 60 and Canada nine records. Representing Latin America and the Caribbean (6.8%, n = 15), Brazil leads with six (2.7%) documents.

The first publication identified was an article from 1986, while the year with the highest number of publications was 2018 (n = 24) (Table 1).

Concept: Barriers and Facilitators in Access to Diabetes, Hypertension, and Dyslipidemia Medicines

The classification of barriers and facilitators presented below emerges from the in-depth review of the texts and the findings found in the review; and is based on the theoretical models of Tanahashi [16], and Penchansky and Thomas [17].

Of the 219 documents included in the review, reported barriers were identified in: affordability (79.5%, n = 174), availability (44.7%, n = 98), acceptability (44.3%, n = 97), accommodation (25.6%, n = 56), and accessibility (18.7%, n = 41). Facilitators were identified in: affordability (37%, n = 81), acceptability (21.9%, n = 48), availability (18.3%, n = 40), accommodation (8.7%, n = 19), and geographical accessibility (4.6%, n = 10). Details of sub-dimensions are found in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3 Barriers by sub-dimensions (Chile, 2022). Source: based on [4, 7, 9, 15, 16, 22–24, 26, 27, 35–245]. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Following, the dimensions and their corresponding subdimensions are characterized and defined. Also, Table 2 presents a complementary analysis regarding the settings in which these barriers and facilitators were reported.

Availability

This dimension considers different aspects related to the physical existence of medications and health professional expertise. It was classified into four areas: 1) medicine, refers to the physical availability of medicines [4, 9, 21, 22, 35–99]. 2) Pharmacy, refers to the availability of medication dispensing establishments [35, 46, 54, 61, 62, 65, 94, 99, 100]. 3) Information or health professional expertise, understood, on one hand, as the information or training that professionals have about the disease and its treatment, which is materialized in the prescription of the medication needed [9, 21, 35, 40, 42, 65, 73, 81, 86, 90, 93, 96, 100–116], as well as the availability of professionals who issue the prescription [22, 35, 36, 41, 45, 51, 61, 72–74, 91, 107, 117–119]. 4) Other, considers regulatory, legal and market aspects, patents, regulatory and drug registration processes [4, 44, 57, 65, 73, 86, 120–125]. This last category also includes aspects related to the availability of supplies for the administration of medications (syringes, needles, or reagent strips); the availability of tests or glucometers [9, 15, 35, 46, 56, 91, 101, 102, 112, 126, 127]; and finally, sub diagnoses [99] and drug transport mechanisms [38, 46].

Facilitators in this dimension are related to the political and health system level, and include national regulations for medication purchasing, the definition of an essential list of medicines, evidence-based national strategies for control of chronic diseases, national drug policies, and the strengthening of health information systems, which make it possible to link health risks with the availability of drugs, efficient procurement, increased national supply of generic drugs, and distribution systems for pharmaceuticals and regular monitoring of medicine stocks [4, 9, 39, 44, 55, 56, 63, 65, 72, 73, 77, 80, 99, 102, 123, 124, 128–130]. Other aspects that facilitate availability are providing education, competencies, and training to health professionals [22, 35, 86, 102, 107, 111, 131–134]; easily-accessible medication dispensing facilities (people’s pharmacies, medicine delivered to home, mobile pharmacies in rural settings) [36, 43, 94, 99, 113, 134–136], and integrated health care programs, which optimize the resources allocated for private health care, to benefit other programs [122, 137]. Finally, medical innovation provides more individualized treatment options and treatments adapted to patients [51, 93, 95, 138].

Geographical Accessibility

This relates to geographical distance between medicines and the location of users who need them. Three areas were considered: 1) distance, refers to the physical distance that people must travel to obtain the medication they need [4, 7, 9, 35–37, 42, 45, 47, 50, 56, 64, 65, 69, 73, 76, 81, 86, 87, 91, 110, 122, 139–146]. 2) Connectivity and existence of transportation, related to the quality of roads, routes and difficulties related to inclement weather, presence of rivers, jungle areas or areas under socio-political conflict or occupation [35, 42, 61, 65, 67, 122]; furthermore, in this area, the presence of sufficient means of transportation and stops that cover the areas where people reside are considered [38, 45, 46, 56, 69, 93, 110, 112, 135, 139, 142, 146, 147]. 3) Other, considers age and physical disabilities as barriers to transportation [7, 43, 68, 117, 135, 140, 148, 149].

Facilitators identified in this dimension are related to the positive perception of the geographic accessibility of a public health facility, proximity to public and private health facilities, transportation availability, urban location of the household [9, 38, 69, 142, 146, 150, 151], services such as mobile pharmacy in rural settings, mail-order pharmacy and transportation assistance for patients (e.g., access to a vehicle, public transit discounts or medical transportation services) [99, 146, 151, 152].

Affordability

Is the relationship between price of medicines and the ability of patients to pay. This dimension was divided into five areas: 1) costs of medicines, in which the high price of medicines represents a barrier to access [9, 15, 21–23, 25, 35, 36, 43, 44, 47, 50–52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 62, 65, 66, 69, 73, 75, 77, 78, 82, 84, 86, 88, 92, 94, 95, 97, 99, 100, 107–109, 111, 112, 116, 121, 122, 124, 126, 128, 140, 142, 145, 147, 153–187], implying the postponement of the treatment initiation, interruption/discontinuity, the use of lower doses or only a part of the prescribed medicines [47, 74, 89, 113, 133, 150, 188–191]. 2) Out-of-pocket expenditure, understood as the direct payment for the medicines [4, 9, 21, 37, 41, 42, 44–46, 49, 51, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 79, 86–88, 91, 93, 94, 100, 106, 109, 115, 117, 119, 120, 124, 129, 131, 136, 141, 142, 144, 147, 161, 163, 169, 192–203], which is associated with the ability of households to pay for those medicines; therefore, a lack of money is relevant in this context [43, 60, 69, 96, 146, 172, 186, 204–207], especially considering that paying for medicine can lead households to borrow, sell assets, disregard needs, or even fall into poverty [56, 61, 72, 138, 139, 189, 208, 209]. This goes beyond the price of the medicines or the financial coverage, since even low-cost medicines or a lack of full coverage for very expensive medicines could represent a significant proportion of the expenditure for low-income households, with medicines accounting for a considerable proportion of total health expenditure, both at the household and aggregate levels [7, 35, 47, 50, 53, 55, 62, 73, 99, 121, 122, 128, 157, 162, 168, 210]. 3) Cost of transportation, which considers the cost people must incur to travel to the place where they pick up or purchase their medicine; related to the cost of public or private transportation, and the frequency with which they must assume this cost [22, 25, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, 56, 62, 65, 72, 88, 96, 112, 122, 135, 144–146]. 4) Lack of financial coverage by the health system or private health insurance, which implies that the person must cover the full cost of the required medicines [7, 9, 15, 22, 25, 26, 35, 42, 43, 54, 57, 62, 64, 65, 69, 72, 81, 86, 99, 117, 119–122, 134, 136, 139, 141, 143–145, 157, 158, 160, 161, 164, 166–169, 172, 180, 186, 189, 199, 205, 209–218]. 5) Other considers: cost of elements required for administering the prescribed medicine (e.g., glucometers, strips, syringes) [56, 63, 74, 93, 127, 132, 219], lack of drug price regulation policies and inefficient purchasing by the public sector [35, 66, 97, 99, 112, 128], cost of consultation or check-up with doctors and specialists [86, 91, 113, 171, 191, 213], cost of travel time [36, 96], sociodemographic characteristics that make it more difficult to afford medications (socioeconomic status, unemployment, age, disability, ethnicity, food insecurity) [65, 115, 122, 133, 135, 140, 172, 180, 186, 195, 202, 212], among others [9, 58, 105, 121, 149, 166, 218, 220, 221].

Regarding facilitators, the following were identified: the provision of free-of-charge medicine and health insurance coverage for pharmaceuticals [7, 21, 35–37, 43, 45–47, 49, 50, 60, 66, 69, 72, 73, 75, 87, 97, 107, 112, 117, 119, 134, 139, 140, 142, 150, 154, 158, 161, 164, 177, 180, 181, 186, 191, 194, 201, 202, 204, 205, 208, 209, 222–225]; health policies such as efficiency in government procurement, price regulation, financial coverage of essential medicines, promoting the use of generic, reducing import duties and promoting local production [4, 44, 55, 56, 58, 59, 65, 99, 120, 122, 124, 137, 157, 162, 189]; global or regional initiatives such as the HEARTS Initiative, the Strategic Fund, WHO’s Model list of essential medicines [9, 65, 123, 129, 149]; among others [22, 71, 74, 82, 95, 96, 113, 121, 144, 169, 175, 188, 207, 226].

Accommodation

This refers to the relationship between how resources for delivering medicines to users are assigned and the users’ capability to adapt to these factors. It was divided into four areas: 1) pharmacy hours and dispensing system, considers scheduling issues (e.g., due to shortages or only 1 day per month) [46, 87], inconvenient operating hours (for instance, needing to depend on others or missing working time) [42, 48, 93, 139, 191, 227], inefficient dispensing processes (e.g., monthly prescribing instead of considering longer periods) [42, 110], and long wait times to collect the medicines [60, 71, 93, 191, 227]. 2) Administrative requirements, includes excessive paperwork needed for prescribing certain drugs (newer or more expensive) [110, 166, 215], confusion about how the system works [147], bureaucratic process for obtaining drugs or applying for coverage programs [79, 110, 228], among others [165, 229]. 3) Accompaniment area, considers the lack of support and communication from professionals towards to patients in their treatments [81, 91, 98, 102, 104, 113, 139, 159, 180, 187, 202, 206, 230], very short consultations (excessive workload, lack of adequate time to educate, answer questions, adjust doses, discuss possible adverse effects and the risks of not controlling their condition, inadequate counseling or lack thereof) [22, 40, 42, 74, 86, 103, 127, 159, 187, 202, 231, 232], clinical inertia (follow-up and treatment adjustment) [103, 159], lack of alignment in the prescribing behavior at the same center [102], lack of communication between health staff members (ambiguity regarding responsibilities, no team approach to care) [40, 145, 159], lack of concern by physicians about the cost of treatment [189], negative attitude or mistreatment by staff [71, 139], lack of continuity with the same health care professional [40, 213], and infrequent follow-up/monitoring [42, 127, 133, 179, 206]. 4) Other considers: inadequate staff incentives and training [35, 102, 133, 145], inadequate logistic systems [39], incorrect prescriptions or dispensing [128], legibility of prescriptions [43], inadequate infrastructure [101, 139, 233], long wait times to see the doctor [233], lack of coordination between different providers (e.g., public and private) [37, 145], lack of active community outreach for chronic patients [36, 159], inadequate information technologies (e.g., poor record-keeping) [145, 159], lack of recognition of circular migration [38], and different prescribing behavior of professionals depending on the size of the facility [221].

Among facilitators identified are: the development of multidisciplinary teams [103, 234], mentorship programs for primary care physicians [103], the expansion of nurse prescriber or manager role [22, 81, 103] (like in Vietnam), physicians effectively communicating their knowledge and addressing patient preferences for information [7, 84, 131, 156], patients directed to mail-order pharmacy services [150], community outreach [150], support programs (e.g., over the phone, by email, through disease associations) or medication counseling [35, 112, 131, 150], periodic reevaluation of medication efficacy for patients [218], diverse health care professionals that accommodate patients’ cultural and language background [150, 177], offering community venues to decongest clinics [135] and combining medicine collection with other appointments [38] (like in South Africa), exceptions on the restrictions to treatment duration or dispensing quantities for chronic diseases [35], reorganizing patients flow to facilitate dispensing [35], targeting specific minority populations [199], simplified and harmonized, online prior authorization process [215], logistic improvements [86], and extending clinic hours [42].

Acceptability

This refers to the degree to which population or specific social groups accept medicines and the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of their use. This depends both on the attitudes of users towards the characteristics of providers and medicines, as well as on the attitudes of providers towards the characteristics of users. It was divided into four areas: 1) cultural aspects, such as preference for alternative medicines [25, 40, 42, 45, 86, 91, 102, 141, 147, 184, 227], social stigma, sense of failure and psychological resistance to insulin [54, 76, 102, 103, 108, 110, 114, 132, 133, 175, 183, 191, 228, 231, 235–239], language barriers [40, 118, 139, 150, 188, 196, 199, 206], and barriers associated with certain ethnic groups, low socioeconomic level and female gender, among others [9, 26, 118, 139, 140, 142, 150, 156, 171, 180, 200, 218, 240–242], and religious beliefs related to concerns about the purity of insulin [102]. 2) Fear, mainly of the use of injectable insulin (fear of needles), side effects of medications, weight gain and hypoglycemia [4, 15, 25, 40, 54, 68, 74, 84, 89, 98, 102–104, 108, 111, 114, 127, 132, 133, 150, 159, 160, 170, 175, 179, 183, 190, 191, 193, 200, 225, 230, 231, 235–239, 243–245], this fear faced by patients is also reported from the health care providers perspective [40, 103, 104, 114, 231, 238]. 3) Treatment and privacy such as the perception of over-prescription, distrust of patients regarding the correctness of the treatment, its complexity and effectiveness, preference for the use of oral medication and skepticism regarding generic drugs [15, 22, 43, 54, 68, 88, 89, 99, 103, 106, 108, 158, 159, 163, 179, 183, 190, 203, 206, 231, 235, 236, 239, 244, 245]. Furthermore, there is evidence of a lack of trust and dissatisfaction with the treatment provided by health care providers, as well as the perception of a lower quality of care in public services compared to private ones [7, 36, 69, 81, 85, 106, 109, 122, 140, 147, 156, 244]. Health care providers also have negative attitudes towards certain treatments and doubt the efficacy of certain medications and are distrustful of the compliance of patients with treatment [22, 51, 54, 101, 102, 118, 132, 155, 159, 193, 239]. 4) Other includes lack of knowledge of the disease, illiteracy and low schooling, which affects the understanding of the disease and the need for medication by patients and their families [4, 7, 25, 40, 42, 51, 56, 65, 69, 75, 81, 98, 118, 141, 159, 177, 180, 187, 191, 202, 206, 235]. In this area, the barriers are observed in the denial of the diagnosis [158, 159], the idea that medication is only necessary if the patient is symptomatic [36, 82, 179], and other misconceptions about the disease and its control [46, 61, 68, 84, 91, 106, 110, 180, 218, 236, 237].

Concerning the aspects that facilitate acceptability, one of the most reported refers to educating patients, the community, and schools about the pathologies through structured educational programs, innovative materials, and sustained campaigns [35, 41, 45, 74, 75, 91, 102, 103, 113, 130, 132, 133, 159, 179, 231, 232, 245]. Another relevant aspect is to consider the cultural context of the people and to use an integral approach centered on the patients, based on knowledge, and oriented to the improvement of the patients’ quality of life [63, 65, 85–87, 98, 124, 131, 150, 158, 179, 199, 231, 235, 238, 245]. Concerning this, bilingual health personnel are valued by patients [25, 69, 188, 199]. On the other hand, social and family support also emerges as a facilitator [45, 177], as well as trust in medications and healthcare personnel [7, 154], and some personal, clinical and social background of the patients [69, 141, 179, 208, 232]. Finally, facilitators related to the type of drug and its application include the use of analogs, flexible doses, pen devices, or inhalable insulin (for children and adolescents), as well as the combination of medications in the same drug [9, 35, 74, 99, 103, 132, 133, 160, 163, 174, 175, 231, 237–239]. Moreover, the importance of regulating the information and the marketing of medicines [35], and of focusing messages on the equivalence between brand name products and generics, when the quality of generic medicines is assured [99], are underlined.

Others

Other barriers that could not be included in the previous dimensions are mainly related to the socioeconomic context of the countries and populations, such as LIC, LMIC and UMIC [35, 55, 63, 109, 120] or poverty [109, 118, 120, 173]. Personal factors such as comorbidities [145], mental health problems [118, 145], disability [118], younger age [26, 140], and lack of time [228] are also included here.

Other facilitators included living in a HIC [55], improved social determinants of health [199], and using disaggregated data for vulnerable groups [35].

Discussion

Lack of access to medicines for chronic conditions, as the three studied in this review, continues to be a struggle for a significant part of the population worldwide. The present review identified 219 documents that discussed this issue in at least one of its dimensions.

The findings suggest that there are recurrent circumstances that hinder people with the studied conditions, to access their medicines. When analyzing the barriers according to the main dimensions, affordability is the most reported and it is present in all settings described. The most reported barriers were availability of medicines, which is a cross-cutting concern, and long distances to facilities, costs of medicines, accompaniment of professionals, and cultural aspects, most present in HIC, UMIC and LMIC.

Although socioeconomic disparities in access to medicines are present worldwide, especially in vulnerable populations, barriers identified in HIC are mostly related to the health system capacity to cover medicines, which, when segmented, generates, and maintains access gaps in the most vulnerable populations. Also, it seems to be an implicit hierarchical order among the barriers depending on socioeconomic status, were availability and affordability are the first two barriers to overcome, and then the other barriers start to play a role. This can be seen regarding accommodation and acceptability (apart from cultural barriers), that does not emerge as an issue in LIC, as seems to be in HIC.

The results show that the relevance of the barriers is determined by the socioeconomic and cultural conditions in which people live. This finding highlights the importance of the role of health systems in the regulatory and policy context, focusing to meet the needs of their population, and assuring financial coverage and access to free medicines when possible. On the other hand, providers can facilitate access through training their health workers, implementing multidisciplinary approach, bringing medicines closer to the people, having more flexible schedules, and having intercultural translators. At the patient level, health education and disease management are crucial.

Based on the results, three major gaps were identified. First, related to the studied conditions, diabetes was undisputedly the most studied; probably due to the need for positioning new forms of insulin administration [114, 160, 174, 175, 237]. Secondly, regarding the target population, most of the evidence is based on patients rather than providers and health systems. Finally, most of the evidence is from the US, with few specific studies from Latin America, Asia or Africa. This should be considered, as there may be underestimated barriers and facilitators related to the other two pathologies, settings, and actors involved.

The strengths of this study are related, on one hand, to its design, since as a scoping review, different types of barriers and facilitators from various perspectives are systematized, allowing for a broad understanding of the phenomenon. A second strength is the rigor of the methodology based on JBI and PRISMA standards.

However, a limitation of the study is that since reviewing the quality of the evidence is optional in this type of study, low-quality studies that report barriers or facilitators would not be identified. Moreover, as the findings originate from published studies and documents, other characteristics, barriers, and facilitators may exist that are not studied for not being published.

The Tanahasi [16], and Penchansky and Thomas [17] models identify a population that encounters health services and another that remains outside the system. For instance, during the review process, only two articles on diabetic homeless were identified [81, 202]. Future research should consider some groups who are excluded from health services, and who may face different barriers than those identified for the individuals who access them.

References

1. World Health Organization. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) [internet] (2021). Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cardiovascular-diseases-(cvds.) (Accessed June 5, 2022).
2. World Health Organization. Hypertension - key facts [internet] (2019). Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hypertension (Accessed September 9, 2020).
3. World Health Organization. Global report on diabetes [Internet] (2016). Available from: http://www.who.int/about/licensing/copyright_form/index.html (Accessed September 9, 2020).
4. MurphyAFaria-NetoJRAl-RasadiKBlomDCatapanoACuevasA World heart federation cholesterol roadmap. Glob Heart (2017) 12(3):179–97.e5. 10.1016/j.gheart.2017.03.002 28765036 doi:10.1016/j.gheart.2017.03.002 PubMed
5. MendisSO’BrienESeedatYKYusufS. Hypertension and diabetes: Entry points for prevention and control of the global cardiovascular epidemic. Int J Hypertens (2013) 2013:878460. 10.1155/2013/878460 23653856PMC3638673 doi:10.1155/2013/878460 PubMed
6. World Health Organization. World health statistics 2020: Monitoring health for the sustainable development goals. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (2020).
7. KohJJKChengRXYapYHaldaneVTanYGTeoKWQ Access and adherence to medications for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in Singapore: A qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence (2018) 12:2481–98. 10.2147/PPA.S176256 30538432PMC6255116 doi:10.2147/PPA.S176256 PubMed
8. GroverAJoshiA. An overview of chronic disease models: A systematic literature review. Glob J Health Sci (2015) 7(2):210–27. 10.5539/gjhs.v7n2p210 PMC479637625716407 doi:10.5539/gjhs.v7n2p210 PubMed
9. WirtzVJKaplanWAKwanGFLaingRO. Access to medications for cardiovascular diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Circulation (2016) 133(21):2076–85. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.008722 27217433PMC4880457 doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.008722 PubMed
10. AbegundeD. Essential medicines for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) (2011). Background paper.
11. NCD Countdown Collaborators. NCD countdown 2030: Worldwide trends in non-communicable disease mortality and progress towards sustainable development goal target 3.4. Lancet (2018) 392:1072–88. 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31992-5 30264707 doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31992-5 PubMed
12. United Nations. The sustainable development goals report (2019). Available from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf (Accessed September 9, 2020).
13. BeranDPedersenHBRobertsonJ. Noncommunicable diseases, access to essential medicines and universal health coverage. Glob Health Action (2019) 12:1670014. 10.1080/16549716.2019.1670014 31573421PMC6781244 doi:10.1080/16549716.2019.1670014 PubMed
14. LevesqueJFHarrisMRussellG. Patient-centred access to health care: Conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health (2013) 12(18):18–9. 10.1186/1475-9276-12-18 23496984PMC3610159 doi:10.1186/1475-9276-12-18 PubMed
15. BurkhartPSabatéE. Adherence to long-term therapies. Geneva, Switzerland: Evidence for action (2003). 14562485 PubMed
16. TanahashiT. Health service coverage and its evaluation. Bull World Health Organ (1978) 56(2):295–303. 96953PMC2395571 PubMed
17. PenchanskyRThomasJW. The concept of access: Definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care (1981) 19(2):127–40. 10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001 7206846 doi:10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001 PubMed
18. MarangosPJOkamotoLJCaroJJ. Economic burden of the components of the metabolic syndrome. In: Handbook of disease burdens and quality of life measures. New York: Springer (2010). p. 1135–49.
19. BigdeliMJacobsBTomsonGLaingRGhaffarADujardinB Access to medicines from a health system perspective. Health Policy Plan (2013) 28(7):692–704. 10.1093/heapol/czs108 23174879PMC3794462 doi:10.1093/heapol/czs108 PubMed
20. RaaijmakersLGMHamersFJMMartensMKBagchusCVriesNKDKremersSP. Perceived facilitators and barriers in diabetes care: A qualitative study among health care professionals in The Netherlands. BMC Fam Pract (2013) 14(114). 10.1186/1471-2296-14-114 PMC375190923937325 doi:10.1186/1471-2296-14-114 PubMed
21. MendisSFukinoKCameronALaingRAnthonioFJrKhatibO The availability and affordability of selected essential medicines for chronic diseases in six low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ (2007) 85(4):279–88. 10.2471/blt.06.033647 17546309PMC2636320 doi:10.2471/blt.06.033647 PubMed
22. BeranDHiguchiM. Delivering diabetes care in the Philippines and Vietnam: Policy and practice issues. Asia Pac J Public Health (2013) 25(1):92–101. 10.1177/1010539511412177 21727084 doi:10.1177/1010539511412177 PubMed
23. BeranDEwenMLepeskaMLaingR. Access to insulin: Current challenges and constraints (2017).
24. BruntonSARendaSMCarolinaNDavisSN. Overcoming psychological barriers to insulin use in type 2 diabetes. Clin Cornerstone (2006) 8(2):s19–s26. 10.1016/s1098-3597(06)80012-8 16939874 doi:10.1016/s1098-3597(06)80012-8 PubMed
25. NamSCheslaCStottsNAKroonLJansonSL. Barriers to diabetes management: Patient and provider factors. Diabetes Res Clin Pract (2011) 93(1):1–9. 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.02.002 21382643 doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2011.02.002 PubMed
26. HuttinC. The role of different types of health insurance on access and utilization of antihypertensive drugs. An empirical study in a US hypertensive population. Dis Management Health Outcomes (2002) 10(7):419–30. 10.2165/00115677-200210070-00003 doi:10.2165/00115677-200210070-00003
27. EvansDBHsuJBoermaT. Universal health coverage and universal access. Bull World Health Organ (2013) 91(8):546–A. 10.2471/blt.13.125450 23940398PMC3738317 doi:10.2471/blt.13.125450 PubMed
28. World Health Organization. Roadmap for access to medicines, vaccines and health product 2019-2023. Comprehensive support for access to medicines, vaccines and other health products. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (2019).
29. World Health Organization. Towards access 2030: WHO medicines and health products programme strategic framework 2016 - 2030. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (2017).
30. PetersMDJGodfreyCMcInerneyPMunnZTriccoACKhalilH. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). In: EAromatarisZMunn, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI (2020). 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 doi:10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
31. TriccoACLillieEZarinWO’BrienKKColquhounHLevacD PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med (2018) 169:467–73. 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033 doi:10.7326/M18-0850 PubMed
32. PetersMDJGodfreyCMKhalilHMcInerneyPParkerDSoaresCB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc (2015) 13:141–6. 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 26134548 doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 PubMed
33. NyanchokaLTudur-smithCThuVNIversenVTriccoACPorcherR. A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. J Clin Epidemiol (2019) 109:99–110. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005 30708176 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005 PubMed
34. World Bank. Washington, DC: World Bank Country and Lending Groups (2020). Data: World Bank Country and Lending Groups [Internet].
35. Management Sciences for Health. MDS-3: Managing access to medicines and health technologies. Arlington, Va: Management Sciences for Health (2012).
36. NaheedAHaldaneVJafarTHChakmaNLegido-QuigleyHGrpCBS. Patient pathways and perceptions of hypertension treatment, management, and control in rural Bangladesh: A qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence (2018) 12:1437–49. 10.2147/PPA.S163385 30147302PMC6097513 doi:10.2147/PPA.S163385 PubMed
37. LallDEngelNDevadasanNHorstmanKCrielB. Models of care for chronic conditions in low/middle-income countries: A ‘best fit’ framework synthesis. BMJ Glob Health (2018) 3(6):e001077. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001077 PMC632630830687524 doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001077 PubMed
38. MagadzireBPBuddenAWardKJefferyRSandersD. Frontline health workers as brokers: Provider perceptions, experiences and mitigating strategies to improve access to essential medicines in South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res (2014) 14:520. 10.1186/s12913-014-0520-6 25370799PMC4230357 doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0520-6 PubMed
39. BhuvanKCHeydonSNorrisP. Access to and quality use of non-communicable diseases medicines in Nepal. J Pharm Pol Pract (2015) 8(1):21. 10.1186/s40545-015-0041-7 PMC455392626328058 doi:10.1186/s40545-015-0041-7 PubMed
40. HaqueMNavsaMEmersonSHDennisonCRLevittNS. Barriers to initiating insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in public-sector primary health care centres in Cape Town. J Endocrinol Metab Diabetes South Africa (2005) 10(3):94–9. 10.1080/22201009.2005.10872127 16341336 doi:10.1080/22201009.2005.10872127 PubMed
41. HendriksMEBolarinwaOAWitFWNWBrewsterLMOdusolaAORosendaalNTA Feasibility and quality of cardiovascular disease prevention within a community-based health insurance program in rural Nigeria: An operational cohort study. J Hypertens (2015) 33(2):366–75. 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000401 25380163 doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000000401 PubMed
42. Risso-GillIBalabanovaDMajidFNgKKYusoffKMustaphaF Understanding the modifiable health systems barriers to hypertension management in Malaysia: A multi-method health systems appraisal approach. BMC Health Serv Res (2015) 15:254. 10.1186/s12913-015-0916-y 26135302PMC4489127 doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0916-y PubMed
43. WilliamsAFManiasEWalkerR. Adherence to multiple, prescribed medications in diabetic kidney disease: A qualitative study of consumers’ and health professionals’ perspectives. Int J Nurs Stud (2008) 45(12):1742–56. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.07.002 18701103 doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.07.002 PubMed
44. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Pharmaceutical innovation and access to medicines. Berlin, Germany: OECD (2018).
45. MettaEHaismaHKessyFGeubbelsEHutterIBaileyA. It is the medicines that keep us alive”: Lived experiences of diabetes medication use and continuity among adults in southeastern Tanzania. BMC Health Serv Res (2015) 15:111. 10.1186/s12913-015-0768-5 25890162PMC4364569 doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0768-5 PubMed
46. AraujoJLOPereiraMDde Sá Del FiolFBarberato-FilhoS. Access to antihypertensive agents in Brazil: Evaluation of the “health has No price” program. Clin Ther (2014) 36(8):1191–5. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.06.003 24986486 doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.06.003 PubMed
47. Ministry of Medical ServicesMinistry of Public Health and Sanitation. Access to essential medicines in Kenya: A health facility survey (2009).
48. IwelunmorJPlange-RhuleJAirhihenbuwaCOEzepueCOgedegbeO. A narrative synthesis of the health systems factors influencing optimal hypertension control in sub-saharan Africa. PLOS ONE (2015) 10(7):e0130193. 10.1371/journal.pone.0130193 26176223PMC4503432 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130193 PubMed
49. Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentWorld Health Organization. Health at a Glance Asia/Pacific 2014. Measuring progress towards universal health coverage. Berlin, Germany: OECD Publishing (2014).
50. BeranDMcCabeAYudkinJS. Access to medicines versus access to treatment: The case of type 1 diabetes. Bull World Health Organ (2008) 86(8):648–9. 10.2471/blt.07.048710 18797626PMC2649458 doi:10.2471/blt.07.048710 PubMed
51. AttaeiMWKhatibRMcKeeMLearSDagenaisGIgumborEU Availability and affordability of blood pressure-lowering medicines and the effect on blood pressure control in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: An analysis of the PURE study data. Lancet Public Health (2017) 2(9):e411–9. 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30141-X 29253412 doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30141-X PubMed
52. SuMZhangQBaiXWuCLiYMossialosE Availability, cost, and prescription patterns of antihypertensive medications in primary health care in China: A nationwide cross-sectional survey. Lancet (2017) 390(10112):2559–68. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32476-5 29102087 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32476-5 PubMed
53. van MourikMSMCameronAEwenMLaingRO. Availability, price and affordability of cardiovascular medicines: A comparison across 36 countries using WHO/hai data. BMC Cardiovasc Disord (2010) 10:25. 10.1186/1471-2261-10-25 20534118PMC2898673 doi:10.1186/1471-2261-10-25 PubMed
54. KhatibR. Barriers to the management of cardiovascular disease: A focus on availability and affordability of medications in 17 countries. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster University (2014).
55. EwenMZweekhorstMRegeerBLaingR. Baseline assessment of WHO's target for both availability and affordability of essential medicines to treat non-communicable diseases. PLOS ONE (2017) 12(2):e0171284. 10.1371/journal.pone.0171284 28170413PMC5295694 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171284 PubMed
56. VolmanB. Direct costs and availability of diabetes medicines in low-income and middle-income countries. Amsterdam: WHO Health Action International (2008).
57. Armstrong-HoughMKishoreSPByakikaSMutungiGNunez-SmithMSchwartzJI. Disparities in availability of essential medicines to treat non-communicable diseases in Uganda: A Poisson analysis using the service availability and readiness assessment. PLOS ONE (2018) 13(2):e0192332. 10.1371/journal.pone.0192332 29420640PMC5805288 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192332 PubMed
58. BabarZUDIbrahimMIMSinghHBukahriNICreeseA. Evaluating drug prices, availability, affordability, and price components: Implications for access to drugs in Malaysia. In: KHarvey, editor, 4 (2007). p. e82.PLOS Med 3 1738866010.1371/journal.pmed.0040082PMC1831730 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040082 PubMed
59. DeebLTanMAlbertiKGMM. Insulin availability among international diabetes federation member associations. Report of the task force on insulin distribution. Diabetes Care (1994) 17(3):220–3. 10.2337/diacare.17.3.220 8174451 doi:10.2337/diacare.17.3.220 PubMed
60. SyedNRockersPCVianTOnyangoMLaingROWirtzVJ. Access to antihypertensive medicines at the household level: A study from 8 counties of Kenya. Glob Heart (2018) 13(4):247–53.e5. e5. 10.1016/j.gheart.2018.08.001 30245176 doi:10.1016/j.gheart.2018.08.001 PubMed
61. BaxterLMEldinMSAl MohammedASaimMChecchiF. Access to care for non-communicable diseases in mosul, Iraq between 2014 and 2017: A rapid qualitative study. Confl Health (2018) 12(1):48. 10.1186/s13031-018-0183-8 30619506PMC6311030 doi:10.1186/s13031-018-0183-8 PubMed
62. HiguchiM. Access to diabetes care and medicines in the Philippines. Asia Pac J Public Health (2010) 22(1):96S–102S. 10.1177/1010539510373005 20566540 doi:10.1177/1010539510373005 PubMed
63. RobertsonJMacéCForteGde JoncheereKBeranD. Medicines availability for non-communicable diseases: The case for standardized monitoring. Glob Health (2015) 11(1):18–6. 10.1186/s12992-015-0105-0 PMC442797925947094 doi:10.1186/s12992-015-0105-0 PubMed
64. CastroBIngLParkYAbramsJRyanM. Addressing noncommunicable disease in Dominican republic: Barriers to hypertension and diabetes care. Ann Glob Health (2018) 84(4):625–9. 10.9204/aogh.2370 30779509PMC6748242 doi:10.9204/aogh.2370 PubMed
65. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare G of I. Financing and delivery of health care services in India (2005).
66. BatanganDEchavezCSantiagoAAde la CruzASantosE The Prices People Have to Pay for Medicines in Philippines, 1–62 (2004).
67. OngSEKohJJKTohSAESChiaKSBalabanovaDMcKeeM Assessing the influence of health systems on type 2 diabetes mellitus awareness, treatment, adherence, and control: A systematic review. PLOS ONE (2018) 13(3):e0195086. 10.1371/journal.pone.0195086 29596495PMC5875848 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195086 PubMed
68. IdeNLoGerfoJPKarmacharyaB. Barriers and facilitators of diabetes services in Nepal: A qualitative evaluation. Health Policy Plan (2018) 33(4):474–82. 10.1093/heapol/czy011 29447397 doi:10.1093/heapol/czy011 PubMed
69. EmmerickICMLuizaVLCamachoLABVialle-ValentinCRoss-DegnanD. Barriers in household access to medicines for chronic conditions in three Latin American countries. Int J Equity Health (2015) 14(1):115–4. 10.1186/s12939-015-0254-z 26521237PMC4628239 doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0254-z PubMed
70. MendisSAbegundeDOladapoOCellettiFNordetP. Barriers to management of cardiovascular risk in a low-resource setting using hypertension as an entry point. J Hypertens (Los Angel) (2004) 22(1):59–64. 10.1097/00004872-200401000-00013 15106795 doi:10.1097/00004872-200401000-00013 PubMed
71. World Health Organization - Europe. Access to new medicines in europe: Technical review of policy initiatives and opportunities for collaboration and research (2015).
72. PAHO/WHOCaribbean Community Secretariat. Report of the caribbean commission on health and development. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randel Publishers (2006). p. 123.
73. Pan American Health Organization Health in the Americas, II. Scientific and Technical Publication (2007). p. 1–756.
74. ChanWBChenJFGohSYVuTTHIsip-TanITMudjanarkoSW Challenges and unmet needs in basal insulin therapy: Lessons from the asian experience. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes (2017) 10:521–32. 10.2147/DMSO.S143046 29276400PMC5733912 doi:10.2147/DMSO.S143046 PubMed
75. ChangHHawleyNLKalyesubulaRSiddharthanTCheckleyWKnaufF Challenges to hypertension and diabetes management in rural Uganda: A qualitative study with patients, village health team members, and health care professionals. Int J Equity Health (2019) 18(1):38. 10.1186/s12939-019-0934-1 30819193PMC6394065 doi:10.1186/s12939-019-0934-1 PubMed
76. NnkoSBukenyaDKavisheBBBiraroSPeckRKapigaS Chronic diseases in north-west Tanzania and southern Uganda. Public perceptions of terminologies, aetiologies, symptoms and preferred management. PLOS ONE (2015) 10(11):e0142194. 10.1371/journal.pone.0142194 26555896PMC4640879 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142194 PubMed
77. CardenasMKMirandaJJBeranD. Delivery of type 2 diabetes care in low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from Lima, Peru. Diabet Med (2016) 33(6):752–60. 10.1111/dme.13099 27194174 doi:10.1111/dme.13099 PubMed
78. CharyAGreinerMBowersCRohloffP. Determining adult type 2 diabetes-related health care needs in an indigenous population from rural Guatemala: A mixed-methods preliminary study. BMC Health Serv Res (2012) 12(1):476. 10.1186/1472-6963-12-476 23260013PMC3546905 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-476 PubMed
79. AdamsOPCarterAO. Diabetes and hypertension guidelines and the primary health care practitioner in Barbados: Knowledge, attitudes, practices and barriers-a focus group study. BMC Fam Pract (2010) 11:96. 10.1186/1471-2296-11-96 21129180PMC3014884 doi:10.1186/1471-2296-11-96 PubMed
80. TripathyJPSagiliKDKathirvelSTrivediANagarajaSBBeraOP Diabetes care in public health facilities in India: A situational analysis using a mixed methods approach. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes (2019) 12:1189–99. 10.2147/DMSO.S192336 31410044PMC6650449 doi:10.2147/DMSO.S192336 PubMed
81. DavachiSFerrariI. Homelessness and diabetes: Reducing disparities in diabetes care through innovations and partnerships. Can J Diabetes (2012) 36(2):75–82. 10.1016/j.jcjd.2012.04.015 doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2012.04.015
82. BovetPGervasoniJPMkambaMBalampamaMLengelerCPaccaudF. Low utilization of health care services following screening for hypertension in dar es salaam (Tanzania): A prospective population-based study. BMC Public Health (2008) 8(1):407. 10.1186/1471-2458-8-407 19087300PMC2615777 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-407 PubMed
83. ThorpeCTBrysonCLMaciejewskiMLBosworthHB. Medication acquisition and self-reported adherence in veterans with hypertension. Med Care (2009) 47(4):474–81. 10.1097/mlr.0b013e31818e7d4d 19330891 doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e31818e7d4d PubMed
84. StewartDWDepueJRosenRKBereolosNGoldsteinMGTuiteleJ Medication-taking beliefs and diabetes in American Samoa: A qualitative inquiry. Transl Behav Med (2013) 3(1):30–8. 10.1007/s13142-012-0114-y 23539136PMC3607390 doi:10.1007/s13142-012-0114-y PubMed
85. Nieblas-BedollaEBreamKDWRollinsABargFK. Ongoing challenges in access to diabetes care among the indigenous population: Perspectives of individuals living in rural Guatemala. Int J Equity Health (2019) 18(1):180. 10.1186/s12939-019-1086-z 31752908PMC6873569 doi:10.1186/s12939-019-1086-z PubMed
86. Legido-QuigleyHNaheedAde SilvaHAJehanIHaldaneVCobbB Patients’ experiences on accessing health care services for management of hypertension in rural Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka: A qualitative study. PLOS ONE (2019) 14(1):e0211100. 10.1371/journal.pone.0211100 30682093PMC6347162 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211100 PubMed
87. Legido-QuigleyHCamacho LopezPABalabanovaDPerelPLopez-JaramilloPNieuwlaatR Patients’ knowledge, attitudes, behaviour and health care experiences on the prevention, detection, management and control of hypertension in Colombia: A qualitative study. PLOS ONE (2015) 10(4):e0122112. 10.1371/journal.pone.0122112 25909595PMC4409332 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122112 PubMed
88. OnyangoMAVianTHirschISalviDDLaingRRockersPC Perceptions of Kenyan adults on access to medicines for non-communicable diseases: A qualitative study. PLOS ONE (2018) 13(8):e0201917. 10.1371/journal.pone.0201917 30142218PMC6108464 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201917 PubMed
89. FordCDKimMJDancyBL. Perceptions of hypertension and contributing personal and environmental factors among rural Southern African American women. Ethn Dis (2009) 19(4):407–13. 20073141PMC2827201 PubMed
90. PeckRMghambaJVanobberghenFKavisheBRugarabamuVSmeethL Preparedness of Tanzanian health facilities for outpatient primary care of hypertension and diabetes: A cross-sectional survey. Lancet Glob Health (2014) 2(5):E285–92. 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70033-6 24818084PMC4013553 doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70033-6 PubMed
91. AlbertiHBoudrigaNNabliM. Primary care management of diabetes in a low/middle income country: A multi-method, qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to care. BMC Fam Pract (2007) 8(1):63. 10.1186/1471-2296-8-63 17996084PMC2186326 doi:10.1186/1471-2296-8-63 PubMed
92. GuptaSDhamijaJPMohanIGuptaR. Qualitative study of barriers to adherence to antihypertensive medication among rural women in India. Int J Hypertens (2019) 2019:5749648–7. 10.1155/2019/5749648 30809390PMC6364129 doi:10.1155/2019/5749648 PubMed
93. BirabwaCBwambaleMFWaiswaPMayegaRW. Quality and barriers of outpatient diabetes care in rural health facilities in Uganda – A mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res (2019) 19(1):706. 10.1186/s12913-019-4535-x 31619234PMC6796349 doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4535-x PubMed
94. EmmerickICMCamposMRLuizaVLChavesLABertoldiADRoss-DegnanD. Retrospective interrupted time series examining hypertension and diabetes medicines usage following changes in patient cost sharing in the ‘Farmácia Popular’ programme in Brazil. BMJ Open (2017) 7(11):e017308. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017308 PMC569530529101135 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017308 PubMed
95. GazianoTAPagidipatiN. Scaling up chronic disease prevention interventions in lower- and middle-income countries. Annu Rev Public Health (2013) 34(1):317–35. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114402 23297660PMC3686269 doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114402 PubMed
96. KratzerJ. Structural barriers to coping with type 1 diabetes mellitus in Ghana: Experiences of diabetic youth and their families. Ghana Med J (2012) 46(1):39–45. 23661816PMC3645143 PubMed
97. BeranD. The impact of health systems on diabetes care in low and lower middle income countries. Curr Diab Rep (2015) 15(4):20. 10.1007/s11892-015-0591-8 25721248 doi:10.1007/s11892-015-0591-8 PubMed
98. ShiyanbolaOOBrownCMWardEC. I did not want to take that medicine”: African-Americans’ reasons for diabetes medication nonadherence and perceived solutions for enhancing adherence. Patient Prefer Adherence (2018) 12:409–21. 10.2147/PPA.S152146 29593383PMC5865580 doi:10.2147/PPA.S152146 PubMed
99. World Health Organization. Health systems respond to non-communicable diseases: Time for ambition. In: MJakabJFarringtonLBorgenmansFMantingh, editors. WHO regional office for europe. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (2018). p. 1–288.
100. SibomanaJPMcNamaraRLWalkerTD. Patient, clinician and logistic barriers to blood pressure control among adult hypertensives in rural district hospitals in Rwanda: A cross-sectional study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord (2019) 19(1):231. 10.1186/s12872-019-1203-3 31638907PMC6805529 doi:10.1186/s12872-019-1203-3 PubMed
101. BorzeckiAMOliveriaSABerlowitzDR. Barriers to hypertension control. Am Heart J (2005) 149(5):785–94. 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.01.047 15894958 doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.01.047 PubMed
102. LeeYKLeePYNgCJ. A qualitative study on healthcare professionals perceived barriers to insulin initiation in a multi-ethnic population. BMC Fam Pract (2012) 13:28. 10.1186/1471-2296-13-28 22469132PMC3389339 doi:10.1186/1471-2296-13-28 PubMed
103. PeyrotMRubinRRKhuntiK. Addressing barriers to initiation of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Prim Care Diabetes (2010) 4:S11–8. 10.1016/S1751-9918(10)60004-6 20394886 doi:10.1016/S1751-9918(10)60004-6 PubMed
104. RossSATildesleyHDAshkenasJ. Barriers to effective insulin treatment: The persistence of poor glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin (2011) 27(3):13–20. 10.1185/03007995.2011.621416 21942467 doi:10.1185/03007995.2011.621416 PubMed
105. MartirosyanLMarkhorstJDenigPHaaijer-RuskampFMBraspenningJ. A pilot qualitative study to explore stakeholder opinions regarding prescribing quality indicators. BMC Health Serv Res (2012) 12:191. 10.1186/1472-6963-12-191 22769967PMC3441387 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-191 PubMed
106. OliveriaSAMendittoLAYoodMUKooYHWellsKEMcCarthyBD. Barriers to the initiation of, and persistence with, insulin therapy. Curr Med Res Opin (2007) 23(12):3105–12. 10.1185/030079907X242638 17977482 doi:10.1185/030079907X242638 PubMed
107. CetorelliVBurnhamGShabilaN. Prevalence of non-communicable diseases and access to health care and medications among Yazidis and other minority groups displaced by ISIS into the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Confl Health (2017) 11(1):4. 10.1186/s13031-017-0106-0 28396693PMC5382370 doi:10.1186/s13031-017-0106-0 PubMed
108. EdelmanSPettusJ. Challenges associated with insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Med (2014) 127(10):S11–6. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.07.003 25282008 doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.07.003 PubMed
109. AlshamsanRLeeJTRanaSAreabiHMillettC. Comparative health system performance in six middle-income countries: Cross-sectional analysis using World health organization study of global ageing and health. J R Soc Med (2017) 110(9):365–75. 10.1177/0141076817724599 28895493PMC5987910 doi:10.1177/0141076817724599 PubMed
110. ShahVOGhahateDMBobeluJSandyPNewmanSHelitzerDL Identifying barriers to healthcare to reduce health disparity in Zuni Indians using focus group conducted by community health workers. Clin Transl Sci (2014) 7(1):6–11. 10.1111/cts.12127 24528897PMC3929233 doi:10.1111/cts.12127 PubMed
111. GonzalvoJD. Introduction to basal insulin therapy: Clinical management of diabetes. Am J Manag Care (2018) 24(6):S87–92. 29620816 PubMed
112. BeranDYudkinJS. Looking beyond the issue of access to insulin: What is needed for proper diabetes care in resource poor settings. Diabetes Res Clin Pract (2010) 88(3):217–21. 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.03.029 20447710 doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2010.03.029 PubMed
113. WangYBKongDGMaLLWangLX. Patient related factors for optimal blood pressure control in patients with hypertension. Afr Health Sci (2013) 13(3):579–83. 10.4314/ahs.v13i3.8 24250292PMC3824450 doi:10.4314/ahs.v13i3.8 PubMed
114. GoldsteinHH. Pen devices to improve patient Adherence with insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes. Postgrad Med (2008) 120(3):172–9. 10.3810/pgm.2008.09.1917 18824835 doi:10.3810/pgm.2008.09.1917 PubMed
115. SaverBGDoescherMPJacksonJEFishmanP. Seniors with chronic health conditions and prescription drugs: Benefits, wealth, and health. Value Health (2004) 7(2):133–43. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.72325.x 15164803 doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.72325.x PubMed
116. MentockSMNgVYNarayanaRUllalHKumariSBadigerS Treatment-seeking behavior and obstacles to treatment compliance in diabetic patients in Mangaluru, India. Diabetes Metab Syndr (2017) 11:S617–22. 10.1016/j.dsx.2017.04.014 28465150 doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2017.04.014 PubMed
117. YoungJHNgDIbeCWeeksKBrotmanDJDySM Access to care, treatment ambivalence, medication nonadherence, and long-term mortality among severely hypertensive african Americans: A prospective cohort study. J Clin Hypertens (2015) 17(8):614–21. 10.1111/jch.12562 PMC803214025923581 doi:10.1111/jch.12562 PubMed
118. RobyDHKominskiGFPouratN. Assessing the barriers to engaging challenging populations in disease management programs: The medicaid experience. Dis Management Health Outcomes (2008) 16(6):421–8. 10.2165/0115677-200816060-00007 doi:10.2165/0115677-200816060-00007
119. FangJWangGAyalaCLucidoSJLoustalotF. Healthcare access among young adults: Impact of the affordable care act on young adults with hypertension. Am J Prev Med (2017) 53(6):S213–9. 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.07.013 29153123PMC7038642 doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.07.013 PubMed
120. World Health Organization. March, WHO policy perspectives on medicines (2004).Equitable access to essential medicines: A framework for collective action
121. BaiGBennetCWangJAndersonGF. Access to antihypertensive drugs in China. Circulation (2018) 138(17):1777–9. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.033360 30354658 doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.033360 PubMed
122. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare - Government of India. Report of the national commission on macroeconomics and health (2005).
123. Pan American Health Organization. Advancing the sustainable health agenda for the americas 2018-2030 (2019).
124. Pan American Health Organization. 55th Directing Council. 68th session of the regional committee of WHO for the americas (2016). p. 1–131.
125. MackeyTKLiangBA. Patent and exclusivity status of essential medicines for non-communicable disease. PLOS ONE (2012) 7(11):e51022. 10.1371/journal.pone.0051022 23226453PMC3511406 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051022 PubMed
126. BeranDYudkinJSde CourtenM. Access to care for patients with insulin-requiring diabetes in developing countries: Case studies of Mozambique and Zambia. Diabetes Care (2005) 28(9):2136–40. 10.2337/diacare.28.9.2136 16123479 doi:10.2337/diacare.28.9.2136 PubMed
127. LeeYKNgCJLeePYKhooEMAbdullahKLLowWY What are the barriers faced by patients using insulin? A qualitative study of Malaysian health care professionals’ views. Patient Prefer Adherence (2013) 7:103–9. 10.2147/PPA.S36791 23378747PMC3559078 doi:10.2147/PPA.S36791 PubMed
128. SenguptaAJosephRKModiSSyamN. Economic constraints to access to essential medicines in India (2008).
129. CocaALópez-JaramilloPThomopoulosCZanchettiA Latin American Society of Hypertension LASH. Best antihypertensive strategies to improve blood pressure control in Latin America: Position of the Latin American society of hypertension. J Hypertens (2018) 36(2):208–20. 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001593 29120958 doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000001593 PubMed
130. Pan American Health Organization. 57th directing council. 71st Session of the Regional Committee of WHO for the Americas. Washington, DC, 30 September - 4 October 2019, 2019. p. 1–139.
131. HalperinIJMukerjiGMaioneMSegalPWolfsMGoguenJ Adult patient perspectives on care for type 1 and type 2 diabetes across the Institute of medicine’s 6 domains of quality. Can J Diabetes (2018) 42(1):36–43. 10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.03.005 28549668 doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.03.005 PubMed
132. KrallJGabbayRZickmundSHammMEWilliamsKRSiminerioL. Current perspectives on psychological insulin resistance: Primary care provider and patient views. Diabetes Technol Ther (2015) 17(4):268–74. 10.1089/dia.2014.0268 25551737 doi:10.1089/dia.2014.0268 PubMed
133. ChawlaRMakkarBMAggarwalSBajajSDasAKGhoshS RSSDI consensus recommendations on insulin therapy in the management of diabetes. Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries (2019) 39(S2):43–92. 10.1007/s13410-019-00783-6 doi:10.1007/s13410-019-00783-6
134. SchwalmJDRMcCreadyTLamelasPMusaHLopez-JaramilloPYusoffK Rationale and design of a cluster randomized trial of a multifaceted intervention in people with hypertension: The Heart Outcomes Prevention and Evaluation 4 (HOPE-4) Study. Am Heart J (2018) 203:57–66. 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.06.004 30015069 doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2018.06.004 PubMed
135. WerfalliMMurphyKKalulaSLevittN. Current policies and practices for the provision of diabetes care and self-management support programmes for older South Africans. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med (2019) 11(1):1–12. 10.4102/phcfm.v11i1.2053 PMC673953031478747 doi:10.4102/phcfm.v11i1.2053 PubMed
136. DonihiAC. Practical recommendations for transitioning patients with type 2 diabetes from hospital to home. Curr Diab Rep (2017) 17(7):52. 10.1007/s11892-017-0876-1 28573408 doi:10.1007/s11892-017-0876-1 PubMed
137. World Health Organization. Final report. WHO GCM/NCD working group on the inclusion of NCDs in other programmatic areas (working group 3.1, 2016-2017). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (2018).
138. SeiterA. Washington, DC: World Bank (2010).A practical approach to pharmaceutical policy
139. World Health Organization. Primary health care on the road to universal health coverage: 2019 global monitoring report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (2019).
140. ChristianiYDhippayomTChaiyakunaprukN. Assessing evidence of inequalities in access to medication for diabetic populations in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Glob Health Action (2016) 9(1):32505. 10.3402/gha.v9.32505 27938647PMC5148807 doi:10.3402/gha.v9.32505 PubMed
141. AlMaatouqMAAl-AroujMAmodAAssaad-KhalilSHAssaadSNAzarST Barriers to the delivery of optimal antidiabetic therapy in the Middle East and Africa. Int J Clin Pract (2014) 68(4):503–11. 10.1111/ijcp.12342 24471972 doi:10.1111/ijcp.12342 PubMed
142. NolteEKnaiCMcKeeM. Managing chronic conditions. Experience in eight countries. Copenhagen, Denmark: Observatories Studies Series N˙15 (2008). p. 202.
143. MurphyGKMcAlisterFAWeirDLTjosvoldLEurichDT. Cardiovascular medication utilization and adherence among adults living in rural and urban areas: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health (2014) 14:544. 10.1186/1471-2458-14-544 24888355PMC4064809 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-544 PubMed
144. RockersPCLaingROWirtzVJ. Equity in access to non-communicable disease medicines: A cross-sectional study in Kenya. BMJ Glob Health (2018) 3(3):e000828. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000828 PMC603551429989082 doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000828 PubMed
145. CrossonJCHeislerMSubramanianUSwainBDavisGJLasserN Physicians’ perceptions of barriers to cardiovascular disease risk factor control among patients with diabetes: Results from the translating research into action for diabetes (TRIAD) study. J Am Board Fam Med (2010) 23(2):171–8. 10.3122/jabfm.2010.02.090125 20207927 doi:10.3122/jabfm.2010.02.090125 PubMed
146. SyedSTGerberBSSharpLK. Traveling towards disease: Transportation barriers to health care access. J Community Health (2013) 38(5):976–93. 10.1007/s10900-013-9681-1 23543372PMC4265215 doi:10.1007/s10900-013-9681-1 PubMed
147. de HeerHDSalinasJLapeyrouseLMHeymanJMoreraOFBalcazarHG. Binational utilization and barriers to care among Mexican American border residents with diabetes. Pan Am J Public Health (2013) 34(3):147–54. 24233106 PubMed
148. AndersonGRodriguezM. Multiple sclerosis, seizures, and antiepileptics: Role of IL-18, ido, and melatonin. Eur J Neurol (2011) 18(5):680–5. 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03257.x 21118329 doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03257.x PubMed
149. Pan American Health Organization. Quinquennial report 2013 - 2017 of the director of the. Washington, DC: Pan American Sanitary Bureau (2017).
150. CamposC. Addressing cultural barriers to the successful use of insulin in hispanics with type 2 diabetes. South Med J (2007) 100(8):812–20. 10.1097/SMJ.0b013e3180f609c4 17713308 doi:10.1097/SMJ.0b013e3180f609c4 PubMed
151. MondesirFLLevitanEBMallaGMukerjiRCarsonAPSaffordMM Patient perspectives on factors influencing medication adherence among people with coronary heart disease (CHD) and CHD risk factors. Patient Prefer Adherence (2019) 13:2017–27. 10.2147/PPA.S222176 31819383PMC6890172 doi:10.2147/PPA.S222176 PubMed
152. SchmittdielJAMarshallCJWileyDChauCVTrinactyCMWharamJF Opportunities to encourage mail order pharmacy delivery service use for diabetes prescriptions: A qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res (2019) 19(1):422. 10.1186/s12913-019-4250-7 31238950PMC6593516 doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4250-7 PubMed
153. IwelunmorJPlange-RhuleJAirhihenbuwaCOEzepueCOgedegbeO. A narrative synthesis of the health systems factors influencing optimal hypertension control in sub-saharan Africa. PLOS ONE (2015) 10(7):e0130193. 10.1371/journal.pone.0130193 26176223PMC4503432 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130193 PubMed
154. SchafheutleEIHassellKNoycePRWeissMC. Access to medicines: Cost as an influence on the views and behaviour of patients. Health Soc Care Community (2002) 10(3):187–95. 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2002.00356.x 12121255 doi:10.1046/j.1365-2524.2002.00356.x PubMed
155. YarzebskiJBujorCFGoldbergRJSpencerFLessardDGoreJM. A community-wide survey of physician practices and attitudes toward cholesterol management in patients with recent acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med (2002) 162(7):797–804. 10.1001/archinte.162.7.797 11926854 doi:10.1001/archinte.162.7.797 PubMed
156. AikensJEPietteJD. Diabetic patients’ medication underuse, illness outcomes, and beliefs about antihyperglycemic and antihypertensive treatments. Diabetes Care (2009) 32(1):19–24. 10.2337/dc08-1533 18852334PMC2606823 doi:10.2337/dc08-1533 PubMed
157. World Health Organization. Measuring medicine prices, availability, affordability and price components. WHO Technical Report Series. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (2008).
158. VenkateshSWeatherspoonLJKaplowitzSASongWO. Acculturation and glycemic control of asian Indian adults with type 2 diabetes. J Community Health (2013) 38(1):78–85. 10.1007/s10900-012-9584-6 22744164 doi:10.1007/s10900-012-9584-6 PubMed
159. OkemahJPengJQuiñonesM. Addressing clinical inertia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A review. Adv Ther (2018) 35(11):1735–45. 10.1007/s12325-018-0819-5 30374807PMC6223992 doi:10.1007/s12325-018-0819-5 PubMed
160. MagwireML. Addressing barriers to insulin therapy: The role of insulin pens. Am J Ther (2011) 18(5):392–402. 10.1097/MJT.0b013e3181ef4dde 20838202 doi:10.1097/MJT.0b013e3181ef4dde PubMed
161. FerrarioAChitanESeicasRSautenkovaNBezverhniZKlugeH Progress in increasing affordability of medicines for non-communicable diseases since the introduction of mandatory health insurance in the Republic of Moldova. Health Policy Plan (2016) 31(6):793–800. 10.1093/heapol/czv136 26830363PMC4916322 doi:10.1093/heapol/czv136 PubMed
162. HiguchiM. Access to diabetes care and medicines in the Philippines. Asia Pac J Public Health (2010) 22(3):96S–102S. 10.1177/1010539510373005 20566540 doi:10.1177/1010539510373005 PubMed
163. AkunneOOAdedapoADA. Antihypertensive prescription among black patients without compelling indications: Prescription, effectiveness, quality and cost of medication. BMC Health Serv Res (2019) 19(1):373. 10.1186/s12913-019-4202-2 31196079PMC6567417 doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4202-2 PubMed
164. World Health Organization. In: EBlasASivasankara Kurup, editors. Equity, social determinants and public health programmes. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (2010). p. 1–291.
165. MaciejkoJJamouaRPremchandA. Assessment and management of patients with hyperlipidemia referred for initiation of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy: A lipid clinic experience. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs (2019) 19:553–9. 10.1007/s40256-019-00352-6 31119582 doi:10.1007/s40256-019-00352-6 PubMed
166. CohenJDCzirakyMJJacobsonTAMakiKCKaralisDG. Barriers to PCSK9 inhibitor prescriptions for patients with high cardiovascular risk: Results of a healthcare provider survey conducted by the National Lipid Association. J Clin Lipidol (2017) 11(4):891–900. 10.1016/j.jacl.2017.04.120 28550993 doi:10.1016/j.jacl.2017.04.120 PubMed
167. McBrienKANauglerCIversNWeaverRGCampbellDDesveauxL Barriers to care in patients with diabetes and poor glycemic control-A cross-sectional survey. PLOS ONE (2017) 12(5):e0176135. 10.1371/journal.pone.0176135 28459820PMC5411045 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176135 PubMed
168. Pan American Health Organization. Annual report of the director 2019. Advancing the sustainable health agenda for the americas 2018-2030. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization (2019). p. 1–146.
169. SadaranganiTRTrinh-ShevrinCChyunDYuGKovnerC. Cardiovascular risk in middle-aged and older immigrants: Exploring residency period and health insurance coverage. Physiol Behav (2011) 176(10):139–48. 10.1111/jnu.12465PMC648836930834719 doi:10.1111/jnu.12465 PubMed
170. MohanVShahSJoshiSSeshiahVSahayBBanerjeeS Current status of management, control, complications and psychosocial aspects of patients with diabetes in India: Results from the DiabCare India 2011 Study. Indian J Endocrinol Metab (2014) 18(3):370–8. 10.4103/2230-8210.129715 24944934PMC4056138 doi:10.4103/2230-8210.129715 PubMed
171. ShulmanNBMartinezBBroganDCarrAAMilesCG. Financial cost as an obstacle to hypertension therapy. Am J Public Health (1986) 76(9):1105–8. 10.2105/ajph.76.9.1105 3740334PMC1646559 doi:10.2105/ajph.76.9.1105 PubMed
172. HermanDAfulaniPColeman-JensenAHarrisonGG. Food insecurity and cost-related medication underuse among nonelderly adults in a nationally representative sample. Am J Public Health (2015) 105(10):e48–59. 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302712 PMC456654726270308 doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302712 PubMed
173. BillimekJSorkinDH. Food insecurity, processes of care, and self‐reported medication underuse in patients with type 2 diabetes: Results from the California health interview survey. Health Serv Res (2012) 47(6):2159–68. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01463.x 22998155PMC3523369 doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01463.x PubMed
174. ZarogoulidisPPapanasNKouliatsisGSpyratosDZarogoulidisKMaltezosE. Inhaled insulin: Too soon to be forgotten? J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv (2011) 24(5):213–23. 10.1089/jamp.2011.0876 21689020 doi:10.1089/jamp.2011.0876 PubMed
175. LeichterS. Is the use of insulin analogues cost-effective? Adv Ther (2008) 25(4):285–99. 10.1007/s12325-008-0043-9 18414816 doi:10.1007/s12325-008-0043-9 PubMed
176. WardWArmbrechtESLavinMA. Medication possession and glycemic control among uninsured type 2 diabetics. J Nurse Pract (2012) 8(7):528–33. 10.1016/j.nurpra.2012.02.001 doi:10.1016/j.nurpra.2012.02.001
177. WilliamsAManiasECrossWCrawfordK. Motivational interviewing to explore culturally and linguistically diverse people’s comorbidity medication self-efficacy. J Clin Nurs (2015) 24(9–10):1269–79. 10.1111/jocn.12700 25265991 doi:10.1111/jocn.12700 PubMed
178. SchafheutleEI. Patients’ views on the UK policy of prescription charges-Insights from qualitative interviews. Res Soc Adm Pharm (2008) 4(4):343–54. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2008.02.001 19064241 doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2008.02.001 PubMed
179. SchwartzKLDaileyRBartocesMBiniendaJArcherCNealeAV. Predictors, barriers, and facilitators of lipid-lowering medication use among African Americans in a primary care clinic. J Natl Med Assoc (2009) 101(9):944–52. 10.1016/s0027-9684(15)31043-9 19806853 doi:10.1016/s0027-9684(15)31043-9 PubMed
180. ValenzuelaJMSeidMWaitzfelderBAndreaMBeaversDPDabeleaDM Prevalence of and disparities in barriers to care experienced by youth with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr (2014) 164(6):1369–75.e1. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.01.035 24582008PMC4035445 doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.01.035 PubMed
181. TsengCWTierneyEFDudleyRAWaitzfelderBAckermannRTKarterAJ Race/ethnicity and economic differences in cost-related medication underuse among insured adults with diabetes: The translating research into action for diabetes study. Diabetes Care (2008) 31:261–6. 10.2337/dc07-1341 18000177 doi:10.2337/dc07-1341 PubMed
182. VanderleeLAhmedSFerdousFFarzanaFDDasSKAhmedT Self-care practices and barriers to compliance among patients with diabetes in a community in rural Bangladesh. Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries (2016) 36(3):320–6. 10.1007/s13410-015-0460-7 doi:10.1007/s13410-015-0460-7
183. SpainCVWrightJJHahnRMWivelAMartinAA. Self-reported barriers to adherence and persistence to treatment with injectable medications for type 2 diabetes. Clin Ther (2016) 38(7):1653–64.e1. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.05.009 27364806 doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.05.009 PubMed
184. KomaricNBedfordSvan DrielML. Two sides of the coin: Patient and provider perceptions of health care delivery to patients from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. BMC Health Serv Res (2012) 12(1):322. 10.1186/1472-6963-12-322 22985266PMC3502549 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-322 PubMed
185. McEwenLNCasagrandeSSKuoSHermanWH. Why are diabetes medications so expensive and what can Be done to control their cost? Curr Diab Rep (2017) 17(9):71. 10.1007/s11892-017-0893-0 28741264 doi:10.1007/s11892-017-0893-0 PubMed
186. TysonDMArriolaNBMedina-RamirezPDaoLUSmithCASLivingstonT. You have to control it however you can”: Type 2 diabetes management in a hispanic farmworker community in rural Florida. Hum Organ (2019) 78(3):205–17. 10.17730/0018-7259.78.3.205 doi:10.17730/0018-7259.78.3.205
187. World Bank. Type-2 Diabetes care in Ukraine: Breakpoints and implications for action. Washington, DC: World Bank (2018).
188. GerberBSCanoAICaceresMLSmithDEWilkenLAMichaudJB A pharmacist and health promoter team to improve medication adherence among latinos with diabetes. Ann Pharmacother (2010) 44(1):70–9. 10.1345/aph.1m389 20028957 doi:10.1345/aph.1m389 PubMed
189. PietteJDHeislerMWagnerTH. Problems paying out-of-pocket medication costs among older adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care (2004) 27(2):384–91. 10.2337/diacare.27.2.384 14747218 doi:10.2337/diacare.27.2.384 PubMed
190. GarneroTLDavisNJPerez-NievesMHadjiyianniICaoDIvanovaJI Insulin non-persistence among people with type 2 diabetes: How to get your patients to stay on insulin therapy. Postgrad Med (2018) 130(4):394–401. 10.1080/00325481.2018.1457396 29571275 doi:10.1080/00325481.2018.1457396 PubMed
191. ColemanMTLottJASharmaS. Use of continuous quality improvement to identify barriers in the management of hypertension. Am J Med Qual (2000) 15(2):72–7. 10.1177/106286060001500206 10763221 doi:10.1177/106286060001500206 PubMed
192. Ohene BuabengKMatoweLPlange-RhuleJ. Unaffordable drug prices: The major cause of non-compliance with hypertension medication in Ghana. J Pharm Pharm Sci (2004) 7(3):350–2. 15576016 PubMed
193. DalalMRGrabnerMBonineNStephensonJJDiGenioABieszkN. Are patients on basal insulin attaining glycemic targets? Characteristics and goal achievement of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with basal insulin and physician-perceived barriers to achieving glycemic targets. Diabetes Res Clin Pract (2016) 121:17–26. 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.08.004 27616634 doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2016.08.004 PubMed
194. CampbellDJTTonelliMHemmelgarnBMitchellCTsuyukiRIversN Assessing outcomes of enhanced chronic disease care through patient education and a value-based formulary study (ACCESS)—Study protocol for a 2×2 factorial randomized trial. Implementation Sci (2015) 11(1):131. 10.1186/s13012-016-0491-6 PMC503763427671037 doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0491-6 PubMed
195. LeeSJiangLDowdyDHongAOryM. Attitudes, beliefs, and cost-related medication nonadherence among adults aged 65 or older with chronic diseases. Prev Chronic Dis (2018) 15(E148):180190–10. 10.5888/pcd15.180190 PMC629213730522585 doi:10.5888/pcd15.180190 PubMed
196. JooJYLeeH. Barriers to and facilitators of diabetes self-management with elderly Korean-American immigrants. Int Nurs Rev (2016) 63(2):277–84. 10.1111/inr.12260 26970224 doi:10.1111/inr.12260 PubMed
197. LylesCRSeligmanHKParkerMMMoffetHHAdlerNSchillingerD Financial strain and medication adherence among diabetes patients in an integrated health care delivery system: The diabetes study of northern California (DISTANCE). Health Serv Res (2016) 51(2):610–24. 10.1111/1475-6773.12346 26256117PMC4799896 doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12346 PubMed
198. CampbellDJTMannsBJWeaverRGHemmelgarnBRKing-ShierKMSanmartinC. Financial barriers and adverse clinical outcomes among patients with cardiovascular-related chronic diseases: A cohort study. BMC Med (2017) 15(1):33. 10.1186/s12916-017-0788-6 28196524PMC5309998 doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0788-6 PubMed
199. MullinsCDBlattLGbarayorCMYangHWKBaquetC. Health disparities: A barrier to high-quality care. Bone (2012) 23(1):1–7. 10.2146/ajhp050064PMC326267716141106 doi:10.2146/ajhp050064 PubMed
200. CersosimoEMusiN. Improving treatment in hispanic/latino patients. Am J Med (2011) 124(10):S16–21. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.07.019 21939794 doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.07.019 PubMed
201. MahoneyJJ. Reducing patient drug acquisition costs can lower diabetes health claims. Am J Manag Care (2005) 11(5):S170–6. 16111439 PubMed
202. ElderNCTubbMR. Diabetes in homeless persons: Barriers and enablers to health as perceived by patients, medical, and social service providers. Soc Work Public Health (2014) 29(3):220–31. 10.1080/19371918.2013.776391 24802217 doi:10.1080/19371918.2013.776391 PubMed
203. GuedesMVCAraujoTLdeLopesMVde OSilvaLde FdaFreitasMCdeAlmeidaPCde. Barreiras ao tratamento da hipertensão arterial. Rev Bras Enferm (2011) 64(6):1038–42. 10.1590/s0034-71672011000600008 22664601 doi:10.1590/s0034-71672011000600008 PubMed
204. GebrezgiMTTrepkaMJKidaneEA. Barriers to and facilitators of hypertension management in asmara, Eritrea: Patients’ perspectives. J Health Popul Nutr (2017) 36(1):11. 10.1186/s41043-017-0090-4 28407794PMC5390439 doi:10.1186/s41043-017-0090-4 PubMed
205. CampbellDJTMannsBJLeblancPHemmelgarnBRSanmartinCKing-ShierK. Finding resiliency in the face of financial barriers: Development of a conceptual framework for people with cardiovascular-related chronic disease. Medicine (2016) 95(49):e5561. 10.1097/MD.0000000000005561 27930562PMC5266034 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000005561 PubMed
206. Claydon-PlattKManiasEDunningT. The barriers and facilitators people with diabetes from a nonEnglish speaking background experience when managing their medications: A qualitative study. J Clin Nurs (2014) 23(15–16):2234–46. 10.1111/jocn.12501 24372586 doi:10.1111/jocn.12501 PubMed
207. BlackstoneSIwelunmorJPlange-RhuleJGyamfiJkofiQNNtimM ‘I believe high blood pressure can kill me:’ using the PEN-3 Cultural Model to understand patients’ perceptions of an intervention to control hypertension in Ghana. Ethn Health (2019) 24(3):257–70. 10.1080/13557858.2017.1346178 28675047 doi:10.1080/13557858.2017.1346178 PubMed
208. PanizVMVFassaAGFacchiniLABertoldiADPicciniRXTomasiE Access to continuous use medication among adults and the elderly in South and Northeast Brazil. Cad Saude Publica (2008) 24(2):267–80. 10.1590/s0102-311x2008000200005 18278273 doi:10.1590/s0102-311x2008000200005 PubMed
209. Vialle-ValentinCESerumagaBWagnerAKRoss-DegnanD. Evidence on access to medicines for chronic diseases from household surveys in five low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy Plan (2015) 30(8):1044–52. 10.1093/heapol/czu107 25255920PMC4654757 doi:10.1093/heapol/czu107 PubMed
210. BernardDMJohanssonPFangZ. Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure burdens among nonelderly adults with hypertension. Am J Manag Care (2014) 20(5):406–13. 25181569 PubMed
211. RiceTLavarredaSAPonceNABrownER. The impact of private and public health insurance on medication use for adults with chronic diseases. Med Care Res Rev (2005) 62(2):231–49. 10.1177/1077558704273806 15750178 doi:10.1177/1077558704273806 PubMed
212. VawterLTongXGemilyanMYoonPW. Barriers to antihypertensive medication adherence among adults - United States, 2005. J Clin Hypertens (2008) 10(12):922–9. 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2008.00049.x PMC867299019120718 doi:10.1111/j.1751-7176.2008.00049.x PubMed
213. FangJYangQAyalaCLoustalotF. Disparities in access to care among US adults with self-reported hypertension. Am J Hypertens (2014) 27(11):1377–86. 10.1093/ajh/hpu061 24847953PMC4263941 doi:10.1093/ajh/hpu061 PubMed
214. KratzerJ. Structural barriers to coping with type 1 diabetes mellitus in Ghana: Experiences of diabetic youth and their families. Ghana Med J (2012) 46(2):39–45. 23661816PMC3645143 PubMed
215. BaumSJTothPPUnderbergJAJellingerPRossJWilemonK. PCSK9 inhibitor access barriers—Issues and recommendations: Improving the access process for patients, clinicians and payers. Clin Cardiol (2017) 40(4):243–54. 10.1002/clc.22713 28328015PMC5412679 doi:10.1002/clc.22713 PubMed
216. FritzenJSMotterFRPanizVMV. Regular access and adherence to medications of the specialized component of pharmaceutical services. Rev Saude Publica (2017) 51:109. 10.11606/S1518-8787.2017051006932 29166445PMC5697919 doi:10.11606/S1518-8787.2017051006932 PubMed
217. PerryLJamesSGallagherRDunbabinJSteinbeckKLoweJ. Supporting patients with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy: Difficulties, disconnections, and disarray. J Eval Clin Pract (2017) 23(4):719–24. 10.1111/jep.12703 28220558 doi:10.1111/jep.12703 PubMed
218. GrantRWLutfeyKEGerstenbergerELinkCLMarceauLDMcKinlayJB. The decision to intensify therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: Results from an experiment using a clinical case vignette. J Am Board Fam Med (2009) 22(5):513–20. 10.3122/jabfm.2009.05.080232 19734397PMC2787088 doi:10.3122/jabfm.2009.05.080232 PubMed
219. KarterAJStevensMRHermanWHEttnerSMarreroDGSaffordMM Out-of-pocket costs and diabetes preventive services: The translating research into action for diabetes (TRIAD) study. Diabetes Care (2003) 26(8):2294–9. 10.2337/diacare.26.8.2294 12882851 doi:10.2337/diacare.26.8.2294 PubMed
220. RyanJGFeddersMJenningsTVittoriaIYanesM. Clinical outcomes and incremental costs from a medication adherence pilot intervention targeting low-income patients with diabetes at risk of cost-related medication nonadherence. Clin Ther (2014) 36(12):1991–2002. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.09.001 25282579 doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.09.001 PubMed
221. LiuYMKao YangYHHsiehCR. The determinants of the adoption of pharmaceutical innovation: Evidence from Taiwan. Soc Sci Med (2011) 72(6):919–27. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.12.027 21333432 doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.12.027 PubMed
222. AraujoJLOPereiraMDde Cássia BergamaschiCde Sá Del FiolFLopesLCde ToledoMI Access to medicines for diabetes treatment in Brazil: Evaluation of “health has no price” program. Diabetol Metab Syndr (2016) 8(1):35. 10.1186/s13098-016-0150-8 27168767PMC4862091 doi:10.1186/s13098-016-0150-8 PubMed
223. ShahBRBoothGLLipscombeLLFeigDSBhattacharyyaOKBiermanAS. Near equality in quality for medication utilization among older adults with diabetes with universal medication insurance in Ontario, Canada. J Eval Clin Pract (2014) 20(2):176–83. 10.1111/jep.12104 24304561 doi:10.1111/jep.12104 PubMed
224. TjiaJJsS. Will the Medicare prescription drug benefit eliminate cost barriers for older adults with diabetes mellitus? J Am Geriatr Soc (2006) 54(4):606–12. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00663.x 16686870 doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00663.x PubMed
225. JohnsonHMWarnerRCLaMantiaJNBowersBJ. I have to live like I’m old.” young adults’ perspectives on managing hypertension: A multi-center qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract (2016) 17(1):31. 10.1186/s12875-016-0428-9 26969619PMC4788815 doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0428-9 PubMed
226. WollumAGabertRMcNellanCRDalyJMReddyPBhattP Identifying gaps in the continuum of care for cardiovascular disease and diabetes in two communities in South Africa: Baseline findings from the HealthRise project. PLOS ONE (2018) 13(3):e0192603. 10.1371/journal.pone.0192603 29538420PMC5851537 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192603 PubMed
227. MagadzireBPMatholeTWardK. Reasons for missed appointments linked to a public-sector intervention targeting patients with stable chronic conditions in South Africa: Results from in-depth interviews and a retrospective review of medical records. BMC Fam Pract (2017) 18:82. 10.1186/s12875-017-0655-8 28836941PMC5571491 doi:10.1186/s12875-017-0655-8 PubMed
228. SuraciCMulasFRossiMCGentileSGiordaCB. Management of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes: What are the attitudes of physicians? A SUBITO!AMD survey on the early diabetes treatment in Italy. Acta Diabetol (2012) 49(6):429–33. 10.1007/s00592-012-0374-5 22294237 doi:10.1007/s00592-012-0374-5 PubMed
229. AlbaneseNPPignatoAMMonteSV. Provider perception of pharmacy services in the patient-centered medical home. J Pharm Pract (2017) 30(6):612–20. 10.1177/0897190016679759 27887032 doi:10.1177/0897190016679759 PubMed
230. DavisSN. The role of inhaled insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications (2008) 22(6):420–9. 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2007.05.001 18413196 doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2007.05.001 PubMed
231. KorytkowskiM. When oral agents fail: Practical barriers to starting insulin. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord (2002) 26(S3):S18–24. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802173 12174319 doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802173 PubMed
232. ScottAO’CathainAGoyderE. Socioeconomic disparities in access to intensive insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: A qualitative study of patient and healthcare professional perspectives. Int J Equity Health (2019) 18(150). 10.1186/s12939-019-1061-8 PMC678811531604437 doi:10.1186/s12939-019-1061-8 PubMed
233. MendenhallENorrisSA. Diabetes care among urban women in soweto, South Africa: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health (2015) 15(1):1300–7. 10.1186/s12889-015-2615-3 26706228PMC4691296 doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2615-3 PubMed
234. SzafranOKennettSLBellNRTortiJMI. Interprofessional collaboration in diabetes care: Perceptions of family physicians practicing in or not in a primary health care team. BMC Fam Pract (2019) 20:44. 10.1186/s12875-019-0932-9 30871513PMC6419394 doi:10.1186/s12875-019-0932-9 PubMed
235. LarkinME. Overcoming psychological barriers to insulin use. US Endocrinol (2008) 4(2):46–8. 10.17925/use.2008.04.2.46 doi:10.17925/use.2008.04.2.46
236. LarkinMECapassoVAChenCLMahoneyEKHazardBCaglieroE Measuring psychological insulin resistance: Barriers to insulin use. Diabetes Educ (2008) 34(3):511–7. 10.1177/0145721708317869 18535324 doi:10.1177/0145721708317869 PubMed
237. BruntonS. Initiating insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: Benefits of insulin analogs and insulin pens. Diabetes Technol Ther (2008) 10(4):247–56. 10.1089/dia.2008.0287 18715198 doi:10.1089/dia.2008.0287 PubMed
238. MeeceJ. Dispelling myths and removing barriers about insulin in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ (2006) 32(1):9S–18S. 10.1177/0145721705285638 16439485 doi:10.1177/0145721705285638 PubMed
239. CuddihyRMBorgmanSK. Considerations for diabetes. Am J Ther (2013) 20(6):694–702. 10.1097/mjt.0b013e318217a5e3 21768872 doi:10.1097/mjt.0b013e318217a5e3 PubMed
240. StephensPRoss-DegnanDWagnerAK. Does access to medicines differ by gender? Evidence from 15 low and middle income countries. Health Policy (2013) 110(1):60–6. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.01.016 23422029 doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.01.016 PubMed
241. AdamsASMaddenJMZhangFSoumeraiSBGildenDGriggsJ Changes in use of lipid-lowering medications among black and white dual enrollees with diabetes transitioning from medicaid to Medicare Part D drug coverage. Med Care (2014) 52(8):695–703. 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000159 24988304PMC4135389 doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000159 PubMed
242. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance of health status in minority communities - racial and ethnic approaches to community health across the U.S. (REACH U.S.) risk factor survey, United States, 2009. MMWR Surveill Summ (2011) 60(6):1–44. 21597458 PubMed
243. PetrakFHerpertzSStriddeEPfutznerA. Psychological insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes patients regarding oral antidiabetes treatment, subcutaneous insulin injections, or inhaled insulin. Diabetes Technol Ther (2013) 15(8):703–11. 10.1089/dia.2012.0257 23844571 doi:10.1089/dia.2012.0257 PubMed
244. PourMRSSadeghiyehTHadaviMBesharatiMBidakiR. The barriers against initiating insulin therapy among patients with diabetes living in Yazd, Iran. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes (2019) 12:1349–54. 10.2147/DMSO.S200867 31496772PMC6689560 doi:10.2147/DMSO.S200867 PubMed
245. DrabS. Translating clinical guidelines into clinical practice: Role of the pharmacist in type 2 diabetes management. J Am Pharm Assoc (2009) 49(6):e152–62. 10.1331/JAPhA.2009.08181 19828429 doi:10.1331/JAPhA.2009.08181 PubMed