Review ArticleA systematic review and meta-analysis of primary prevention programmes to improve cardio-metabolic risk in non-urban communities

- There are disparities in cardio-metabolic health between urban and non-urban areas.
- Intervention effectiveness may differ by the setting within which it is applied.
- Barriers to health behaviour change may differ between urban and non-urban areas.
- Context may be important when designing and implementing an effective intervention.
- Non-urban interventions utilising community and health resources can be effective.

IntroductionAlthough cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) prevention programmes have been effective in urban residents, their effectiveness in non-urban settings, where cardio-metabolic risk is typically elevated, is unknown. We systematically reviewed the effectiveness of primary prevention programmes aimed at reducing risk factors for CVD/T2DM, including blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), blood lipid and glucose, diet, lifestyle, and knowledge in adults residing in non-urban areas.MethodsTwenty-five manuscripts, globally, from 1990 were selected for review (seven included in the meta-analyses) and classified according to: 1) study design (randomised controlled trial [RCT] or pre-/post-intervention); 2) intervention duration (short [< 12 months] or long term [≥ 12 months]), and; 3) programme type (community-based programmes or non-community-based programmes).ResultsMultiple strategies within interventions focusing on health behaviour change effectively reduced cardio-metabolic risk in non-urban individuals. Pre-/post-test design studies showed more favourable improvements generally, while RCTs showed greater improvements in physical activity and disease and risk knowledge. Short-term programmes were more effective than long-term programmes and in pre-/post-test designs reduced systolic blood pressure by 4.02 mm Hg (95% CI − 6.25 to − 1.79) versus 3.63 mm Hg (95% CI − 7.34 to 0.08) in long-term programmes. Community-based programmes achieved good results for most risk factors except BMI and (glycated haemoglobin) HbA1c.ConclusionThe setting for applying cardio-metabolic prevention programmes is important given its likelihood to influence programme efficacy. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the individual determinants of cardio-metabolic risk in non-urban populations and in contrast to urban populations.