Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 29;18(6):e0287743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287743

Developing an organizational capacity assessment tool and capacity-building package for the National Center for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases in Iran

Ahad Bakhtiari 1,2, Amirhossein Takian 1,2,3,*, Afshin Ostovar 4, Masoud Behzadifar 5, Efat Mohamadi 1, Maryam Ramezani 1,2
Editor: Samane Shirahmadi6
PMCID: PMC10309984  PMID: 37384743

Abstract

Non-communicable diseases represent 71% of all deaths worldwide. In 2015, Sustainable Development Goals, including target 3.4 of SDGs, were seated on the world agenda; “By 2030, reduce premature mortality from NCDs by one-third. More than half of the world’s countries are not on track to reach SDG 3.4, and the COVID-19 crisis has hampered the delivery of essential NCD services globally, which means the premature death of millions of people and indicates the need for capacity building for health systems. We designed a tool to measure the capacity of the National Center for Non-Communicable Disease and then presented the proposed policy package to enhance the national center’s organizational capacity. The data for this explanatory sequential mixed method study was collected using quantitative and qualitative approaches between February 2020 and December 2021. The tool for assessing organizational capacity for NCDs was developed, and its validity and reliability were measured. The developed tool assessed the organizational capacity by evaluating NCNCD’s managers and experts. Following the quantitative phase, a qualitative phase focused on the low-capacity points revealed by the tool. The causes of low capacity were investigated, as well as potential interventions to improve capacity. The developed tool comprises six main domains and eighteen subdomains, including (Governance, Organizational Management, Human Resources Management, Financial Management, Program Management, and Relations Management) which verified validity and reliability. In seven separate National Center for Non-Communicable Disease units, the organizational capacity was measured using the designed tool. (Cardiovascular disease and hypertension; diabetes; chronic respiratory disease; obesity and physical activity; tobacco and alcohol; nutrition; and cancers). The organizational management dimensions and the sub-dimensions of the organizational structure of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education and units affiliated with the national center, in all cases, were almost one of the main challenges that affected the country’s capacity to fight against NCDs. However, all units had a relatively good situation in terms of governance (mission statement, vision, and written strategic plan). The content analysis of experts’ opinions on the low-capacity subdomains highlighted challenges and recommended capacity-building interventions. Transparency in methods and processes is necessary to allocate funding among various health programs and evaluate their effects through cost-effectiveness indicators. This study identified weak points or areas where capacity building is required. The root causes of low capacity and interventions to build capacity are listed in each dimension of the tool. Some of the proposed interventions, such as strengthening organizational structures, have the potential to impact other domains. Improving organizational capacity for NCDs can assist countries to achieve national and global goals with greater efficiency.

Introduction

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) represent 71% of all deaths worldwide and kill 41 million bodies each year; the four top killers that together account for more than 80% of all premature NCD deaths include cardiovascular diseases (17·9 million deaths annually), cancers (9 million), respiratory diseases (3·9 million), and diabetes (1·6 million) [1]. NCDs killed 287000 people in Iran in 2016 [2]. Rising trends in the number of associated death and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) during the past decades have played an alarm for policymakers in the world and Iran [3]. In 2014, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoHME) of Iran and the National Center for Non-Communicable Disease (NCNCD) began significant reforms to the health system; IraPEN is part of the national health transformation plan (HTP) to provide universal health coverage, including access to NCD prevention and care, and mental health services [4].

The 25 × 25 strategy for the burden of NCDs was reinstated in 2015 with the new Global Agenda, “Sustainable development goals” (SDGs) especially target 3.4 of SDGs; “By 2030, reduce by one-third premature mortality from NCDs through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being” [5]. Several guides and interventions have been considered and recommended to achieve target 3.4, including Package of Essential Noncommunicable (WHO-PEN) Disease Interventions for Primary Health Care in Low-Resource Settings [6], Ira-PEN [4], Best Buys [7], the relation between NCDs and universal health coverage (UHC) [8]. In a complementary study, we evaluated the national NCDs program and prioritized best buys and other WHO-recommended interventions in Iran; the results show that the WHO recommendations for NCDs management are included in the national program [9]. We also identified and analyzed the key stakeholders in implementing the WHO-recommended interventions in Iran, which will assist policymakers in developing inter-sectoral cooperation [10].

More than half of the world’s countries are not on track to reach SDG 3.4 [11, 12], and the COVID-19 crisis interrupted delivering healthcare services for hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease in Iran; also, caused service delivery for blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease was disrupted by 22 to 66 percent in 163 countries; [13, 14], which means the premature death of millions of people and highlighting the need for capacity building [15].

For the better direction of the public health sector, Public Health Services and Systems Research (PHSSR) was introduced in 2001 [16] but focused more on performance and standards, and key processes, the conceptual framework of PHSSR refers to “capacity,” but there is not much to be said about its definition and how to measure capacity [17]. Along with the development of the general framework for capacity assessment, researchers’ and studies’ focus on organizational capacity and related components has grown over time. The specific framework for assessing organizational capacity for diseases such as AIDS was developed by public health researchers [18].

Definitions of Capacity Building for disease programs can be defined as follows:

“Capacity building is any action that improves the effectiveness of individuals, organizations, networks, or systems—including organizational and financial stability, program service delivery, program quality, and growth” or “Capacity building is a long-term process that improves the ability of an individual, group, organization, or ecosystem to create positive change and perform better to improve public health results” [19].

Capacity: the ability or power of an organization to apply its skills, assets, and resources to achieve its goals. An organization with high organizational capacity will have higher speed, power, and quality in attending to its goals. Governance, the hierarchy of authority, organizational structure, human resource management, financing, resource allocation, administrative communications, legislation, and inter-sectoral coordination are all affected by organizational capacity. Improving their management equals better management for the health of the population.

Organizational capacity assessment for NCDs is one of the WHO-recommended interventions that, according to our previous research, was not on the national agenda [9]. On the other hand, other capacity measurement techniques weren’t appropriate for Iran’s context. For instance, Iran has provided a positive response to the question of whether there is a national institution for NCDs in the WHO’s capacity measurement tool. But it doesn’t mention the fact that conditions like respiratory diseases and physical inactivity lack formal organizational structures and that multiple parallel offices are concurrently engaged in their own curative and public health deputies. According to this situation, this study aimed to assess the organizational capacity assessment of NCNCD to strengthen the NCNCD organizational capacity and improve the administration of NCDs in Iran. We designed a tool to measure the capacity of NCNCD and then presented the proposed policy package to enhance the NCNCD organizational capacity.

Methods

The data for this explanatory sequential mixed method study was collected using quantitative and qualitative approaches between February 2020 and December 2021. In the initial phases, the organizational capacity assessment tool was developed, its validity and reliability were measured, the organizational capacity of NCNCD was assessed. Following the quantitative phase, a qualitative phase focused on the low capacity points revealed by the tool. The causes of low capacity were investigated, as well as potential interventions to improve capacity.

1. Designing organizational capacity assessment tool

1.1 Literature review and understanding of the organization that will be evaluated

To become familiar with organizational capacity building, the literature reviewed in various fields, including public health. Recommendations, dimensions, methods, and steps for capacity assessments/building in literature were reviewed and summarized. Next, the study team became more familiar with the four major NCDs and related risk factors. The national documents and policies, as well as global documents, policies, and recommendations reviewed (Box A in S1 Appendix) [9].

1.2 Understanding the NCNCD as a targeted organization for capacity building

The initial collaboration with the NCNCD’s director was conducted, and the structure and position of the NCNCD within the (MoHME) were reviewed. An NCNCD assistant was also chosen as the study team’s communication link. The Ministry of Health’s overall structure was also reviewed to discover other relevant departments.

As the leading NCDs and related risk factors, seven subjects for capacity assessment and capacity building were selected according to Appendix 3 of the WHO Global NCD Action Plan [18]; based on capacity assessment results on these seven subjects (Fig 1), the primary organizational barriers and challenges surrounding the NCNCD were identified.

Fig 1. Selected subjects for capacity assessment.

Fig 1

2. Designing tool (Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool, OCAT)

The tool’s basic foundation was designed based on a comprehensive review of similar tools and the relevant literature (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) [6, 1931] (Box B in S1 Appendix). we have divided assessment questions into six general domains that make up the main parts of the tool (Fig 2). Based on the relevant literature and experts’ opinions, the subdomains were designed to measure the extent of NCNCD’s control and authority over those domains; while the WHO questionnaire measures the presence or absence of factors in most cases, the tool measures NCNCD’s authority over the designed sub/domains. Each domain’s questions were designed based on reviewing related studies and opinions of the study team and the expert team number one (Table 1 in S1 Appendix). The relevant expert team discussed and decided on the tool’s questions and structure. Three situations were labeled as unacceptable, requiring revision, and acceptable for the sub-dimension. The questions were revised continuously until they were all in an acceptable situation. To minimize measurement error, the researchers used short, simple sentences and non-specialized words as answers.

Fig 2. Main domains and sub-domains considered for capacity assessment.

Fig 2

2.1 Tool’s validity and reliability

We considered expert team number two for the tool’s validity and reliability (18 experts), with 12 of them selected purposely with academic expertise and experience in the field of organizational aspects to examine the tool’s validity and six experts to evaluate the tool’s reliability based on their familiarity with the NCNCD to determine the inter-rater agreement between their scores and the managers of the NCNCD (Table 2 in S1 Appendix). Testing content validity can be done in a variety of approaches. The methodology used in this study included both cognitive approaches and empirical methods to determine the content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI). Following these steps, cognitive interviews with six NCNCD experts were established. We used the Kappa statistic to evaluate the reliability. Statistical analysis for reliability testing was conducted using R version 3.6.2 (34), package DescTools (35). For more details about tools, validity, and reliability, please see S1 Appendix.

3. Data collection: The process of capacity assessment and capacity building

We considered three general steps of the capacity-building process (Fig 3), including 1. Assessment (and Reassessment), 2. Identify Solutions and Action Planning, and 3. Modification Domains and implementation.

Fig 3. The general steps of the capacity-building process.

Fig 3

3.1 Capacity assessment

The experts from each office with a connection to the areas under investigation received the finalized tool. They received the verbal and written guidance they required and had access to the NCNCD facilitator if they had any questions. Their colleagues rechecked the scored tool after it had been scored. To check and finalize the scoring of the tool, a meeting was conducted with the experts and managers of all 7 areas and the head of NCNCD.

The sum of three questions will determine the score for each domain; After scoring the OCAT, weaknesses were identified in each of the seven subjects or units; also, common weaknesses were identified. After passing a familiarity course conducted by the interface (NCNCD assistant), seven experts from seven units of NCNCD rated the designed tool. To ensure the accuracy of scoring, the rated tools were evaluated by seven unit managers and the chief of NCNCD.

A score of X ≤ 2 on a scale of 4 in the sub-domain and a score of X ≤ 8 on a scale of 12 in total scores was considered in the tool analysis to be a point that needed capacity building.

4. Qualitative phase: Challenges and recommended capacity-building interventions

4.1 Interviews with the NCNCD and the third expert team

The common weaknesses among the seven deputies are the most important points we explored through interviewing experts. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews with purposefully selected experts were conducted (AB—Ph.D. and MB–Ph.D., both have experience in national studies with a qualitative approach) to identify the roots of the problems and develop capacity-building recommended interventions. We chose experts purposively and used snowball techniques. (MoHME’s departments are relevant to seven selected subjects or units belonging to NCNCD, asked NCNCD-unite managers (tool raters) to introduce influential stakeholders in relevant subjects) (Table 3 in S1 Appendix).

The study’s aims were described to the interviewees before the interview, and they also received information on the topic in question. The interviews, which lasted between 30 and 80 minutes each, were conducted between August 2020 and March 20201 to ensure data saturation. The interviews were all conducted at the interviewees’ workplaces. The interviews were conducted using an interview guide that was created based on the domains of the tool and recognized weaknesses. Interviews were recorded, and transcribed verbatim; the data were analyzed using Framework content analysis. The steps included in framework analysis are Familiarization or reviewing the interviews as well as the knowledge gained in the previous phases; Identifying a thematic framework or the domains and subdomains of the tool; Indexing or Line by line coding of interviews; Charting. arranging codes to affiliated subdomains; and Mapping and interpretation [32]. Framework content analysis started with independent work from AB and MB and disagreements and ambiguities were brought up and addressed.

To ensure the quality of the qualitative phase, numerous steps were taken, including using an interview guide, selecting a varied range of interviewees, replicating data and statements during the interviews, doing multiple analyses, and validating the instrument’s dimensions. The study received ethical approval from the Ethical Committee of the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Approval number 9321460002).

5. Modification domains and implementation

Based on the content analysis opinions of NCNCD management and experts and the views of experts from outside the NCNCD, a package of interventions in six domains was identified. The proposed interventions were presented to the NCNCD as a recommended capacity-building policy package.

Results

A capacity assessment tool is a tool that can be used to assess an organization’s capacity. The designed tool was used in seven different sections of NCNCD. (1. Cardiovascular disease and hypertension; 2. Diabetes; 3. Chronic Respiratory Disease; 4. Obesity and Physical Activity; 5. Tobacco and Alcohol; 6. Nutrition (salt, sugar, fat, fruit, and vegetable); and 7. Cancers). According to Lawshe’s content validity ratio [33], the CVR was calculated in all cases and was above the minimum value of 0.56, and the S-CVI was equal to 0.903. (Tables 6–11 in S1 Appendix). The kappa values for the three arias we tested show moderate (0.4–0.6) to strong (0.6 and higher) interrater agreement (Table 5 in S1 Appendix). This indicates that the tool and its application methodology meet the reliability standard. We reasoned that if both raters were trustworthy, they should report the same organizational capacity level. Kappa statistics have confirmed this hypothesis.

The radar chart provides a quick snapshot of a unit’s overall organizational capacity status. Fig 4 depicts the results of capacity assessments for different subjects; for each topic, six domains are scored; this evaluation is also performed for subdomains (Figs 3 to 9 in S1 Appendix). Many of the assessed areas, as depicted in Fig 4, have weaknesses in the organizational management, relations, and financial management dimensions. Relations, followed by financial management, are the two main domains for developing capacity in the field of cardiovascular disease and hypertension. It should be noted that this flaw may have its roots in other areas, such as the organizational structure. Organizational management is the main domain that requires capacity building in areas 3. Chronic Respiratory Disease, 4. Obesity and Physical Activity, and 5. Tobacco and Alcohol. Financial management has the greatest need for organizational capacity building in the area of nutrition and cancer.

Fig 4. The capacity assessment results.

Fig 4

1. Cardiovascular disease and hypertension; 2. Diabetes; 3. Chronic Respiratory Disease; 4. Obesity and Physical Activity; 5. Tobacco and Alcohol; 6. Nutrition; 7. Cancers.

After the tools identify the subdomains that require capacity building, the qualitative study is used to identify the causes of weakness and the best interventions for capacity building in each sub-dimension. The six main themes (domains) and 18 sub-themes (subdomains) were utilized for arranging 438 codes. The results of the analysis of the interviews in each of the main dimensions are as follows.

1. Stewardship/governance

Cardiovascular diseases and hypertension, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, and cancers have higher scores (11, 11, 10, and 10, respectively) in the Governance domain because they are directly within the NCNCD structure (NCNCD is within the deputy for public health). In contrast, the parallel governance system exists in the deputy for curative affairs, which has created challenges for integrated governance. The tobacco control secretariat and the community nutrition improvement office play a crucial role in the governance of nutrition, tobacco, and alcohol. Both positions belong to the deputy for public health, which has made cooperation with the NCNCD for governance more coherent than the deputy for curative affairs.

As one of the most comprehensive and successful programs, Iran’s National NCDs Program has clearly established the country’s path. Under normal conditions, its comprehensiveness is a strength, but it might become a weakness with the economic sanctions and the COVID-19 crisis. “Another concern with our planning is idealism. We suddenly see that a substantial package has been developed that will be difficult to implement, particularly in light of the sanctions that we met throughout IraPEN’s implementation. (P.4).

Since the National Committee for NCDs was established in 2015 under the MoHME, governance of NCDs has been reinforced. The committee’s diversity of specialties has separated program direction from personal perspectives.

“There are specific concepts involved in preventing NCDs, and structural changes do not occur” (P.2) “and we will keep to our original plans (P.20), even though “switch in governments has caused significant challenges”

(P.23).

Many departments are policy-making for NCDs and related risk factors requiring NCNCD policy approval. NCNCD leaders are emphasizing increased collaborative partnerships.

“It is irrational to have an office within the NCNCD for any risk factor. However, the working groups should include a diverse range of stakeholders, and the NCNCD should only proceed with the coordination, finalization, and approval of policies and programs”

(P.4)

The governance is dual, parallel, and distinct. In the public health and curative affairs of MoHME, governance is often separate, and policies are inconsistent. The NCDs governance has been substantially challenged by the unclear position of two decades of poor implementation of the family physician program and the referral system because these are the platforms for conducting the programs.

“A national director of a disease must not only be accountable for public health, but also have the authority to supervise treatment” (P.10). “If you review the organization structure, the human resources, and the overview, you should give NCDs as much consideration as necessary.” Additionally, the structure should be modified in this manner.

(P.13)

Provincial needs and priorities in NCDs governance aria would vary according to Iran’s vast geographical, cultural, and social context. Provincial policymakers must be able to modify national programs based on these variances, but not all provinces have this capability. “Not all provinces have the capacity to modify the programs” (P.2).

The executive body will show opposition during the implementation phase if it does not actively participate in the planning phase. Experts also identified written or verbal commitments as a concern. “Although this document was signed by high-ranking officials who committed their support, we did not receive it in practice” (P.5).

Furthermore, the outcome of long-term preventative activities is determined, and managers are proclive to pursue steps that deliver immediate results. “The advantages of preventive work take time to show up, but managers desire to see the rewards of their efforts right away.” (P.8).

For decades, national macro-plans, like the family physician, that affect other programs like an umbrella, have remained undefined, putting NCDs planning in a state of flux. “We need to decide whether or not we want to use the family physician and specify the task. The program’s unpredictability posed numerous challenges to developing and executing diabetes-related activities.” (P.9)

Multi-sectoral Governance for health has been forgotten.” Vital nutritional topics of the country are left, i.e., the Ministry of Health should be strongly involved in what is subsidized, for example, sugar subsidy as a risk factor for NCDs or subsidizing saturated oils” (p.13) “The Ministry of Health has some influence on food safety, which is food health, but its role in food security is much lower than it should be” (P.14)

Recommendation

  • Capacity Building for NCDs provincial teams at medical universities to guide and modify national programs based on the context of provincial relevant indicators.

  • Strengthening the Ministry of Health’s intra-inter-sectoral relations on NCNCD and their risk factors for coherence in national planning and policies, as well as forming joint working groups among the Ministry of Health’s departments and deputies, and increasing the executive body’s participation in updating national programs.

  • Using disease burden and cost reports to instill the necessity of an NCDs program and its promotion within the scientific community and national and provincial decision-makers.

  • Clarifying the future path of the Iranian health system’s governance for managers and policymakers; determining national inclusion programs like family physicians and referral systems that greatly influence planners’ decisions.

  • Examine how disease governors can be integrated into the public health and curative departments and explore similar scenarios.

  • Strengthen the Ministry of Health’s governance in health-related concerns, including the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Welfare, and Nutrition.

2. Organizational management

Comparatively, the organizational structure of the examined units in cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancers, and nutrition is more formally defined and coherent than the organizational structure in chronic respiratory diseases, tobacco and alcohol, and physical activity. The Ministry of Health’s organizational structure has led to separating treatment and public health into two distinct departments, and opinions regarding the optimal structure and possible solutions vary. The Deputy Public Health has established one of the most extensive PHC networks in the world, especially in rural areas. Following the 2014 health transformation plan, this structure was strengthened, particularly in urban areas where active PHC service providers had no comprehensive coverage.

After implementing the HTP, providing active service packages, especially NCDs, became more attainable. “Consider a patient with three chronic diseases. If he/she must visit a separate center for each and cannot afford to do so, rural and urban comprehensive health centers can be fixed this concern” (P.9). The MoHME’s network management center, which makes decisions about the Primary health packages that available in PHC facilities, is a key component of the structure and is essential to the efficiency of the current structure.

The Supreme Council of Health and Food Security (SCHFS) is the principal office of MoHME in promoting inter-sectoral cooperation. The establishment of this council’s secretariat within the structure of the Ministry of Health has facilitated the development of inter-sectoral interventions.

“In the case of expert nutrition, which has been used in the PHC centers, it is a good initiative, but it cannot do much; the food policy in the country must be addressed, which is not only the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, or the Ministry of the Interior. This is a matter of governance; what should we do? What kinds of goods should we import, what kinds of goods should we produce, and what kinds of food products should we subsidize?

(P.14)

The separation of public health and curative affairs has also challenged the referral system.

“Now, the referral system is also being discussed; where is it implemented? What types of referrals have been made? What was the effectiveness of this referral? Unfortunately, public health and curative have their own referral systems which are not connected.” (P.4). “reforming the structure immediately will not assist, but if they can optimize the current structure, it may be more effective to meet the goals.

(P.2)

The NCDs management center and the public health deputy organizational structure must be strengthened. “There are many limitations on the number of centers and offices for deputies. I believe that becoming a center rather than a disease office was preferable due to its greater authority. Proposals have been developed for a structure but have not been approved. This is notably true for tobacco, physical activity, and chronic respiratory disorders, which lack official, independent organizational structures” (P.10). “To battle cancer, we planned the administration to the National Cancer Management Center or the National Secretariat, but it was never put into practice” (P.23).

Recommendation

  • Examining the advantages and disadvantages of developing a health deputy as an alternative to two public health and curative deputies as a long-term intervention

  • As a short-term measure, designing strategies for more effective engagement and cooperation between public health and curative deputies through the formation of joint working groups.

  • Examining, approving, and developing the organizational structure of unstructured units (tobacco, physical activity, chronic respiratory).

  • Implementation of the approved cancer office structure

  • Examining the appropriate number of organizational positions for each unit

  • Strengthen the organization of the SCHFS to enhance intersectoral cooperation.

3. Human resources management

The training of human resources at universities of medical sciences was not sufficiently community-oriented before the HTP; therefore, reforming the educational system is one of the phases considered for the HTP. This strategy considered ten country areas, and the education system was infused with essential disciplines and community-oriented education. “In the field of preventive intervention, university-level training is very basic and not community-oriented. University-level training in the area of human resources does not meet the needs of society. In recent years, revisions have been made, and the outcomes of these modifications must be awaited” (P.8). Future planning is somewhat more transparent and more manageable because different levels of service providers for diseases are defined. “At the level of service provided, it has been seen what characteristics the human resources providing services at each level should have and what services they should provide (chronic respiratory diseases) (P.10).

Communication skills are one of the issues that still exist between patients and providers; “In particular, elderly patients have low literacy levels, and our service providers speak to them in, at best, simple scientific language, which frequently fails to communicate with this group of patients effectively. Effective communication skills training is essential for providers” (P.8).

The ineffective referral and communication between curative and public health deputies have a negative impact on human production efficiency. “…for example, if a diabetic patient with major symptoms goes directly to a specialist after his issue is cured, there is no follow-up; he should be sent to the PHC level, and the barriers that prevented him from being recognized by PHC must be addressed” (P.8).

A shortage in human resources was also noted in related departments, particularly in the physical activity, cancer, and chronic respiratory units. “The next step is to add workforce after strengthening the structure” p10. “cancer affairs have many duties, at the national level, which cannot be managed by a five-person office” (P.23)

Following the implementation of the HTP, new services, such as nutrition and psychological counseling, are being provided in PHC centers facing difficulties. “The number of population per nutritionist should be reduced, but this ratio is such that this expert cannot respond to the needs of the covered population with quality” and “we still do not have nutrition experts in most of our urban and rural centers” and “or In some centers, nutritionists still do not have computers” p16 and “the number of these forces is small compared to the workload” (P.23).

Payment to providers is one of the most crucial policies contributing to maintaining and enhancing human resource performance. “The current method of paying experts based on the number of services rendered is inaccurate, as the payments are less than the actual number of services provided and Prompted the departure of fed experts” (P.12).

Units help to define the necessary training for medical and healthcare staff in PHC centers, but they are not particularly good at determining the educational needs of faculty and students at universities. It is essential to boost communication with the MoHME deputy of education to address this. “There is almost no consultation with our office regarding the educational issues of university students and professors” (P.23).

Recommendation

  • Continuous feedback from units working on NCDs to the education system’s planning system.

  • Implementing patient-provider communication training

  • Improving the referral system to maximize the utilization of human resources

4. Financial management

Managers and policymakers are receptive to reforms, innovations, and new sources of revenue and methods for allocating financial resources to improve financial management since they have extensive experience with the effects of reliance on financial resources on the instability of government revenues. As a result of the uncertainty of the health system’s financing mechanisms, national plans have been designed with some confusion, and the quality of planning has declined.

“The financing status of the health system should adhere to a principle so that planners are aware of their responsibilities, whether public insurance or out of pocket; this situation has exposed our planners to a great deal of uncertainty”

(P.4)

The allocation of resources is currently facing significant challenges due to the adverse economic situation caused by sanctions and the decline in government public revenue. Also, several creative community-based projects were terminated. “Before the tightening of sanctions, a limited budget had been set aside for the pilot study of chronic respiratory disorders, but in the previous two years, no funding has been received. (P.10).

Chronic diseases come with everyday expenses that the patient must cover to survive the disease’s serious effects. These factors should be considered during planning as well. “The issue is that some people are ignoring their diabetes because managing it daily costs so much money” (P.9).

Another issue that calls for capacity building is the Ministry of Health’s duty to guide allocating financial resources outside the Ministry of Health. “The Ministry of Health should supervise the allocation of resources for optimal nutrition, even though other ministries (other than the Ministry of Health) can do so……the Ministry of Health should play a leading cross-sectoral role in the macro-politics of the country(P.14).

The absence of social and private insurance in preventive areas is one of the other issues. “Many financial concerns will disappear for both individuals and insurance companies if insurance organizations support NCDs’ preventive service packages” (P.19).

Recommendation

  • Clarifying for planners the future pathway of health system financing

  • The departments of the Ministry of Health offer guidance and training for reporting programme outcomes and cost-effectiveness metrics.

  • Investigating the construction of a comparable method agreed upon by the departments of the Ministry of Health to allocate resources among various initiatives.

  • The Ministry of Health should pursue financing national health-related programs in areas such as agriculture, air pollution, etc.

  • Insurance companies and the private sector covering preventative services

5. Programs management

The health system’s transformation plan has impacted the service provider’s organizational structure. Programs are gathered from various national units, including the maternal and newborn, environmental, communicable, and NCDs departments in the PHC network management center, and delivered as age-appropriate packages services that may not include all of a program’s material. “The HTP entirely changed the structure of the previous provider, and diabetes care is now delivered in the form of age groups. This poses challenges because the proposed program differs from the one currently in operation. It cannot be restricted to specific program components” (P.12). Based on this, the units’ programs must be delivered to the PHC network management center with the highest priority given to the age groups and service packages.

Implementing the integrated health system) SIB(, using electronic health records, the electronification of prescriptions for medications, and other initiatives have helped the country’s health information system progress significantly in recent years. Nonetheless, there are no connected information systems between the various levels of service delivery.; “Many issues will be resolved if the electronic health system is developed and adopted by everyone, including the private sector. This information system’s fragmentation wastes the system’s energy” (P.9).

In the section on organizational structure, we highlighted the separation and poor communication of the curative and public health structures, which has also been reflected in the section on program management. “Treatment-focused and prevention-focused initiatives should be connected” (P.1).

Another area that calls for capacity building is the evaluation of programs. Comparing programs is another way to show how different effective programs are. “Showing the results of programs isn’t just about services that are provided; it is also about how many lives saved, how much costs saved, how disease burden reduced, and other things we don’t have an obvious procedure to assess programs. “…. “For instance, a university that enacted a restriction on hookah supply throughout the entire area covered did not measure the impact on reducing tobacco usage, the impact on public support, or how satisfied people are with this policy.” (P.5).

Due to the country’s hybrid health system, which includes components of several health systems worldwide, planning for Iran’s health system has been challenging. “Our healthcare system is extraordinarily complex and unclear. Politicians and planners face a severe challenge in this regard; they must develop a strategy that is compatible with all of the existing systems, as we utilize a combination of them” (P.8).

The development of community-oriented programs should be included in the agenda to have the daily affairs of organizations and families; “Sometimes there are simple things that the universities of medical sciences themselves do not follow, for example, last year there was oil and sugar in the food basket donated to the employees of the university” (P.1)

Recommendation:

  • Integrating preventative and treatment-oriented programs, as well as a strengthened referral and feedback mechanism between them

  • Employing novel approaches and prioritizing interventions and programs in response to contractionary and expansionary economic situations.

  • Developing the fundamental concepts of program evaluation so that the programs of various deputies and departments can be compared.

  • Determining the future direction of the country’s health system for planners (Buriji, Bismarck, out-of-pocket payment, national health insurance, etc.)

6. Relations management

“The Secretariat of the Supreme Council is acting in the capabilities of inter-sectoral collaboration, but all departments of the Ministry of Health have the duty to move toward inter-sectoral cooperation” (P.17), according to consensus among all departments that the Supreme Council of Health and Food Security is the best mechanism for fostering cross-sectoral measures.

“When the national document of the NCD program was adopted, a large number of ministries also signed this document and committed to it, and this means attracting their participation, while we are in constant contact with other ministries through the Supreme Council of Health and Food Security”

(P.10).

Executive body secretaries for health; It is a new idea that the Supreme Council implemented for Food and Health Safety. Based on this, a Ministry of Health representative has been placed in other ministries and strives to encourage inter-sectoral collaboration. There are currently 23 health secretariats, some of which are located in agriculture, sports, and education ministries.

The socio-economic commissions of the parliament provide an additional opportunity for the Ministry of Health to integrate health into all policies. “The Ministry of Health should actively participate in parliamentary committees. When the annual budget is being approved, it should advocate for the expenditure of these funds in a manner that promotes a healthy diet. The Ministry of Health either does not perform certain functions or performs them inadequately” (P.13).

The structure of the Ministry of Health also influences its intradepartmental relations or communications. “Participating stakeholders in developing policies are, in my opinion, the most effective method for informing these policies; this will result in the key stakeholders of the adopted policy being automatically notified of the approval.” (P.1)… “We do not have an optimal partnership with the treatment department, nor do we share the same information system” (P.12).

Recommendation

  • Expanding the duties and roles of the Ministry of Health through the Supreme Council of Health and relevant parliamentary commissions

  • Improving intradepartmental communication and cooperation through the establishment of working groups, coordination committees

  • The commitment and collaboration of the Ministry of Health to enhance health in all policies

Discussion

Our study’s findings served as a tool for identifying organizational capacity-building gaps in the areas we investigated. In the qualitative section, we outlined the root causes of these points and proposed interventions. Annex 3 of the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases has six objectives whose implementation will enable achieving NCDs objectives by 2030 [9]. One of the recommendations in Appendix 3, is capacity assessment and capacity building [18]; and countries have paid less attention to it [19].

To enhance healthcare conditions in developed and developing countries, capacity building is essential. This process focuses on understanding the barriers that prevent organizations from realizing their goals and promoting those elements that aid them in achieving measurable and sustainable results [34, 35]. The evaluation of capacity building for NCDs can be viewed from various perspectives, including views of civil society organizations [36]. Different levels of capacity building are used for both organizations and individuals [37]. The capacity-building points may differ at the level of providers and local managers. This capacity assessment study was conducted at the national level and demonstrated the majority of the needs of national NCD managers.

Since capacity-building results and outputs are achieved over the long term (11), managers do not consider it as much as they should. Many studies on capacity assessment and capacity building have focused on the presence or absence of factors such as financial resources and medicines [20, 31, 38, 39] and less on the NCNCD’s ability and authority to determine and guide factors. Some other capacity-building studies choose a specific dimension, such as the capacity assessment on the need for research and education for NCDs in Turkey [40].

The region’s varied economic, cultural, and social development has influenced health policies; as a result, there are differences in the incidence of risk factors among provinces [41, 42]. Because of this different context, diseases, and risk factors, it is essential to modify national plans to local circumstances. For this reason, local health authorities need to have access to multidisciplinary decision-making teams that, under NCNCD leadership, adjust national agendas.

Clarifying the future direction of the health system’s governance model in Iran for managers and policymakers and determining the ambiguous status of programs such as family physicians and basic insurance should be outlined for planners to decrease policymaking uncertainty. Similar research has emphasized the importance of the health system’s governance model in developing action plans [43].

The results showed the consequences of the separation of public health and curative affairs in MoHME in human resources, resource allocation, and program management, Coherent governance. Experts’ opinions on increasing integration vary; some believe that structural changes should be made, while others prefer alternative approaches. Structural reforms are costly to implement and will likely encounter opposition from stakeholders. Studies have noted the necessity to reform the Ministry of Health’s organizational structure. For instance, organizational problems and scattered parallel structures in MoHME were explicitly mentioned by Behzad Damari et al. in 2020 [44], and Korosh Etemad in 2016 [45].

The Ministry of Health should have a goal to fight for when addressing health determinants, not just critical or advisory approaches. According to research on intersectoral cooperation on NCDs conducted in African nations, the main barriers to multisectoral action include the lack of awareness among various sectors of their potential contribution, a lack of political will, the difficulty of coordination, and a lack of resources [46]. Many of these can be carried out via developing capacity.

Many articles have talked about how important it is for countries to follow the WHO’s Best Buys and other interventions, especially in countries with limited finances and resources. As this study and others have shown [47], Iran is in a good situation than other countries to set the agenda for these interventions [4752]. The authority and capability of the key bodies should be reinforced to be implemented and indicators should also be used to measure the level of progress nationally and in each province.

Effective program implementation would be severely hampered by weak accountability and transparency in allocating resources, and health systems increasingly use a systematic approach to allocate resources based on evidence [53, 54]. The allocation of resources, which can increase the effectiveness of the Iranian health system, is one area that needs capacity building.

Inadequate intersectoral cooperation in many countries is one of the greatest challenges to addressing NCDs [5557]. Fighting against NCDs as the leading cause of death in Iran and the world requires a high-level political commitment and a multi-sectoral approach in all countries; as a result, Iran established a multi-sectoral committee known as the Iran NCDs Committee (INCDC) and developed a national plan. The Supreme Council of Health and Food Safety has approved this multisectoral plan [58].

In this study, more than 27 policy interventions have been offered to build organizational capacity; some have umbrella status, meaning that changes to them might affect the entire system, including changing MoHME’s organizational structure.

Conclusion

The designed tool identified the need for organizational capacity in the field of NCDs, which can assist managers become more aware of the organizational challenges. The causes of organizational weakness and associated policy interventions are also listed in the qualitative section; we believe that these will serve as useful recommendations for managers and planners based on the available data.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Description of the expert teams and validity and reliability of the tool.

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the MoHME’s authorities and staff. In particular, we are grateful to the NCNCD-MoHME, for their invaluable contribution to data collection and interpretation of findings.

Abbreviations

DALYs

Disability-adjusted life years

HTTP

Health transformation plan

I-CVI

Item-level Content Validity Index

INCDC

Iran NCDs Committee

MoHME

Ministry of Health and Medical Education

NCDs

Non-communicable diseases

NCNCD

National Center for Non-Communicable Disease

OCAT

Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool

PHSSR

Public Health Services and Systems Research

SCHFS

Supreme Council of Health and Food Security

S-CVI

Content Validity Index for Scales

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

SIB

Integrated health system

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Forouzanfar MH, Alexander L, Anderson HR, Bachman VF, Biryukov S, Brauer M, et al. GBD 2013 Risk Factors Collaborators Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2287–323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Peykari N, Hashemi H, Asghari G, Ayazi M, Janbabaei G, Malekzadeh R, et al. Scientometric Study on Non-communicable Diseases in Iran: A Review Article. Iran J Public Health. 2018;47(7):936–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vos T, Abajobir AA, Abate KH, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abd-Allah F, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1211–59. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO. Islamic Republic of Iran on a fast-track to beating noncommunicable diseases 2017 [https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/islamic-republic-of-iran-on-a-fast-track-to-beating-noncommunicable-diseases.
  • 5.Organization WH. Health in 2015: from MDGs, millennium development goals to SDGs, sustainable development goals: World Health Organization; 2015.
  • 6.Organization WH. Implementation tools: package of essential noncommunicable (PEN) disease interventions for primary health care in low-resource settings: World Health Organization; 2013.
  • 7.Organization WH. Tackling NCDs: ‘best buys’ and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization; 2017.
  • 8.Vázquez TR, Ghebreyesus TA. Beating NCDs can help deliver universal health coverage. Lancet. 2017;390(10101):1473. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32470-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bakhtiari A, Takian A, Majdzadeh R, Haghdoost AA. Assessment and prioritization of the WHO "best buys" and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases in Iran. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):333. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-8446-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bakhtiari A, Takian A, Majdzadeh R, Ostovar A, Afkar M, Rostamigooran N. Intersectoral collaboration in the management of non-communicable disease’s risk factors in Iran: stakeholders and social network analysis. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1669. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14041-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bennett JE, Stevens GA, Mathers CD, Bonita R, Rehm J, Kruk ME, et al. NCD Countdown 2030: worldwide trends in non-communicable disease mortality and progress towards Sustainable Development Goal target 3.4. The Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1072–88. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31992-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bakhtiari A, Takian A, Behzadifar M, Hosseinpour F, Mostafavi H. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Noncommunicable Disease Service Delivery: an Overview of Global Experiences. Sci J Kurdistan Univ Medical Sci. 2021,10;26(5):98–118. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Organization WH. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on noncommunicable disease resources and services: results of a rapid assessment. 2020.
  • 14.Afkar M, Rezanejad Asl P, Mahdavi Hezaveh A, Akrami F, Riazi-Isfahani S, Peykari N, et al. The effect of Covid-19 pandemic on non-communicable disease prevention and management services in the primary health care system of Iran. SJKU. 2021; 26 (5): 33–49 http://sjku.muk.ac.ir/article-1-6869-fa.html. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Khosravi Shadmani F, Farzadfar F, Larijani B, Mirzaei M, Haghdoost AA. Trend and projection of mortality rate due to non-communicable diseases in Iran: A modeling study. PloS one. 2019;14;14(2):e0211622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Handler A, Issel M, Turnock B. A conceptual framework to measure performance of the public health system. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(8):1235–9. doi: 10.2105/ajph.91.8.1235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Meyer AM, Davis M, Mays GP. Defining organizational capacity for public health services and systems research. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2012;18(6):535–44. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e31825ce928 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.World Health Organization. Updated appendix 3 of the who global Ncd action plan 2013–2020. Technical Annex. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.2017.
  • 19.Vaidya A. Capacity building: A missing piece in Nepal’s plan for prevention and control of non-communicable diseases. Journal of Kathmandu Medical College. 2018. Dec 31;7(4):131–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Organization WH. Assessing national capacity for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases: report of the 2015 global survey. 2016.
  • 21.Shams L, Yazdani S, Takian A, Nasiri T. Multi-sectoral Requirements of Non-Communicable Diseases Stewardship in Iran. J Revista Publicando. 2018;5(15):1420–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.WHO. Accelerating regional implementation of the Political Declaration of the Third High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases, 2018. 2019.
  • 23.Organization WH. Service availability and readiness assessment (SARA): an annual monitoring system for service delivery: reference manual. World Health Organization; 2013.
  • 24.OECD. Implementation guidelines on evaluation and capacity building for the local and micro regional level 2009.
  • 25.Austrian Development Agency, Evaluation Unit; Guidelines for Project and Programme Evaluations. 2009.
  • 26.Pact, Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) Handbook; A practical guide to the oca tool for practitioners and development professionals. 2012. https://www.pactworld.org/sites/default/files/OCA%20Handbook_ext.pdf.
  • 27.Bateson DS, Lalonde AB, Perron L, Senikas V. Methodology for assessment and development of organization capacity. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30(10):888–95. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32968-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Westfall CT. Got Inclusion? How Inclusive is your Organization? Assessing Inclusion through the iCAT: Inclusion Capacity Assessment Tool for Organizational Capacity. 2016.
  • 29.Snow J. Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool—John Snow, Inc. 2014.
  • 30.USAID. The USAID Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) Tool 2016 [https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/organizational-capacity-assessment.
  • 31.Assessing national capacity for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases: report of the 2017 global survey. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BYNC-SA 3.0 IGO.
  • 32.Strivastava A, Thomson SB. Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Journal of Administration & Governance 2009; 4: 72–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity 1. JPp 1975;28(4):563–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Awofeso N. Organisational capacity building in health systems. Routledge; 2012. Aug 21. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bourgeois I. Informing evaluation capacity building through profiling organizational capacity for evaluation: An empirical examination of four Canadian federal government organizations. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2008;1;23(3):127. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Alliance N. Ncd Civil Society Atlas National and Regional NCD Alliances in Action. 2018.
  • 37.Aboumatar HJ, Weaver SJ, Rees D, Rosen MA, Sawyer MD, Pronovost PJ. Towards high-reliability organising in healthcare: a strategy for building organisational capacity. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(8):663–70. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Van Minh H, Do YK, Bautista MA, Tuan Anh T. Describing the primary care system capacity for the prevention and management of non-communicable diseases in rural Vietnam. The International journal of health planning and management. 2014;29(2):e159–73. doi: 10.1002/hpm.2179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Si X, Zhai Y, Shi X. Assessment on the capacity for programs regarding chronic non-communicable diseases prevention and control, in China. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology. 2014:675–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kilic B, Phillimore P, Islek D, Oztoprak D, Korkmaz E, Abu-Rmeileh N, Zaman S, Unal B. Research capacity and training needs for non-communicable diseases in the public health arena in Turkey. BMC health services research. 2014;14(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Movahedi M. Trend and geographical inequality pattern of main health indicators in rural population of Iran. Hakim 2008; 10:1–10. (Persian). [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Young TK, Chatwood S, Ng C, Young RW, Marchildon GP. The north is not all the same: comparing health system performance in 18 northern regions of Canada. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2019;78(1):1697474. doi: 10.1080/22423982.2019.1697474 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mosadeghrad AM, Rahimitabar P. Health system governance in Iran: A comparative study. Razi J Med Sci. 2019;26(9):10–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Damari B, Heidari A. Implementation of integrated management of non-communicable disease prevention and control in Iran: A proposal. Payesh (Health Monitor). 2020. Feb 15;19(1):7–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Etemad K, Heidari A, Panahi M, Lotfi M, Fallah F, Sadeghi S. A Challenges in Implementing Package of Essential Noncommunicable Diseases Interventions in Iran’s Healthcare System. Journal of health research in community. 2016;2(3):32–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Juma PA, Mapa-Tassou C, Mohamed SF, Mwagomba BL, Ndinda C, Oluwasanu M, et al. Multi-sectoral action in non-communicable disease prevention policy development in five African countries. BMC public health. 2018. Aug;18(1):1–1. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5826-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Allen LN, Pullar J, Wickramasinghe KK, Williams J, Roberts N, Mikkelsen B, et al. Evaluation of research on interventions aligned to WHO ‘Best Buys’ for NCDs in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review from 1990 to 2015. BMJ global health. 2018;3(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Nishtar S, Niinisto S, Sirisena M, Vazquez T, Skvortsova V, Rubinstein A, et al. Time to deliver: report of the WHO Independent High-Level Commission on NCDs. Lancet. 2018;392(10143):245–52. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31258-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Cowling K, Magraw D. Addressing NCDs: Protecting Health From Trade and Investment Law: Comment on" Addressing NCDs: Challenges From Industry Market Promotion and Interferences". IJHPM. 2019;8(8):508. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.41 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Delobelle P. Big Tobacco, Alcohol, and Food and NCDs in LMICs: An Inconvenient Truth and Call to Action: Comment on" Addressing NCDs: Challenges From Industry Market Promotion and Interferences". IJHPM. 2019;8(12):727. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.74 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Isaranuwatchai W, Teerawattananon Y, Archer RA, Luz A, Sharma M, Rattanavipapong W, et al. Prevention of non-communicable disease: best buys, wasted buys, and contestable buys. BMJ. 2020;368:m141. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Allen LN, Pullar J, Wickramasinghe K, Williams J, Foster C, Roberts N, et al. Are WHO “best buys” for non-communicable diseases effective in low-income and lower-middle-income countries? A systematic review. The Lancet Global Health. 2017;5:S17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Harris C, Allen K, Waller C, Green S, King R, Ramsey W, et al. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 5: developing a model for evidence-driven resource allocation in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):342. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2208-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Fiset-Laniel J, Guyon A, Perreault R, Strumpf EC. Public health investments: neglect or wilful omission? Historical trends in Quebec and implications for Canada. Can J Public Health. 2020;111(3):383–8. doi: 10.17269/s41997-020-00342-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Allen LN, Nicholson BD, Yeung BYT, Goiana-da-Silva F. Implementation of non-communicable disease policies: a geopolitical analysis of 151 countries. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(1):e50–e8. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30446-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.World Health Organization. Time to deliver: report of the WHO independent high-level commission on noncommunicable diseases.
  • 57.Magnusson RS, Patterson D. How Can We Strengthen Governance of Non-communicable Diseases in P acific Island Countries and Territories?. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies. 2015;2(2):293–309. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Peykari N, Hashemi H, Dinarvand R, Haji-Aghajani M, Malekzadeh R, Sadrolsadat A, et al. National action plan for non-communicable diseases prevention and control in Iran; a response to emerging epidemic. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2017;16(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s40200-017-0288-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Samane Shirahmadi

24 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-28106Developing an organizational capacity assessment tool and capacity-building package for the National Center for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases in IranPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Amirhossein Takian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 23 March 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Samane Shirahmadi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests  section:

“AT and AO are members of the INCDC at the MoHME- Iran. We (AT and AO) have no conflict of interest to disclose. AB, , EM, MB, and MR declare that they have no competing interests.”

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: INCDC at the MoHME- Iran

a.            Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Capacity assessment tools are increasingly, and effectively, used by health systems around the globe to assess and improve their capacities to respond to public health emergencies and other problems. Given the prominence of non-communicable diseases, a similar approach to NCD capacities, as described in this paper, is a promising idea. If it were validated, the authors’ tool could be useful in many countries beyond Iran, where it was developed and tested.

However, despite the title (“Developing an organizational capacity assessment tool …”), the parts of paper addressing the performance of the proposed tool are poorly described and I believe under-developed. The methods for assessing the tool’s validity and reliability are given in one-paragraph (Section 2.1) and the related results in another paragraph (the first paragraph in the Results section). Appendix A has only two paragraphs (those immediately preceding Table 2) on methods and results.

Overall, I find these paragraphs difficult to follow, both because of substantive reasons and also poor writing. In particular:

• Section 2.1 describes two expert teams, noting that “For the first expert team (18 experts), we selected 12 experts …” The second team has 6 experts, so perhaps that’s the difference, but it’s very hard to follow.

• More substantively, these teams are described in different ways in the main paper and the appendix, but I believe that some work within the relevant ministries and others not. If this is true, the first would be evaluating their own work, so there is a potential for bias. It would be interesting to see if both categories of experts had similar or different ratings, but it is not clear to me that this is done.

• The paper describes formal interviews with the six experts from the second team, but it is not clear whether or how they were used to assess the validity or reliability of the tool. Presumably the discussions on pp. 9-16 is based on these interviews, but these seem to be substantive, and unrelated to assessing the tool’s performance.

• The paragraph in the Results section refers to Appendix A, Table 1-6. The appendix has only 2 numbered tables, so I can only guess that “Table 1-6” refers to the six un-numbered domain-specific tables.

• Referring to “Table 2-Appendix A”, the Results section reports on “kappa values for all of the arias (areas?) we tested show, but one see only in the appendix that that the results are based on only three substantive areas (physical activity, cardiovascular disease, and tobacco).

Because of the lack of clarity about methods and results, it is difficult for me to know that the tool is valid and performs well even in the setting in which it was tested.

Rather than validating the tool they developed, the authors spend the bulk of the paper in substantive discussion of the six domains (pp. 9-16), providing specific recommendations for organization change. It is not clear to me that these discussions are based on the questionnaire results; rather they seem to be based on the qualitative interviews. The Discussion and Conclusions (pp. 17-18) also primarily address substantive issues. As a methodologist who is not familiar with Iran, I have no way to assess the validity of this discussion. But even if they were valid, they would be of little interest to researchers or practitioners outside of Iran.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for choosing me as a reviewer.

The article is very valuable and constructively written, however, the following suggestions are made for improvement.

The study was written using a structure that made sense.

Introduction: Given the high prevalence of NCDs noted in the introduction, could you perhaps elaborate on how these conditions interact with the COVID-19 pandemic? Make an effort to use numbers to demonstrate the subject's importance.

More information can be found in the WHO research at https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240010291.

Even when the questions on the COREQ checklist have been addressed, it is still advised to complete and submit this checklist. The table title ("Reported on Page #") invites the authors to provide the page numbers that correspond to each specific item on the checklist.

Best Regards

Reviewer #3: Thank you for giving me the opportunity the reading this valuable research. In this research, a tool has been designed to assess the capacity of the National Center for Non-Communicable Disease for Non-Communicable Disease and in another part of the study; the NCNCD organizational capacity has been assessed. The design of the study is mixed method and it had qualitative and quantitative parts.

Here are some comments:

Abstract:

- Please do not use the abbreviations in the abstract.

- Please describe what you had done in quantitative and qualitative sections of your study in clear form in design section, separately.

- What is the type of your mixed method design (exploratory? explanatory?)?

- How do you use and combine the findings of the two parts of the study? Describe it in the method and result.

- The conclusion did not cover all the findings of your study.

Introduction

- The knowledge gap is not well discussed in the introduction section.

- you should report the previous related tool in your research topic and why you want design a new tool.

- The goal is not clear well.

Method

- What is the type of your mixed method design (exploratory? explanatory?)? why you select mixed method for your research? Please describe it. What is the qualitative phase and what is the quantitative phase and how this two phases are related and integrated?

- It is not clear what are the goal of literature review (step 1 in method) and what is the relation of this step to other steps of the study. Is your goal is item generation for the tool?

- 2. Designing Tool (Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool, OCAT):

is there related tool previously?

what was your search strategy? how did you check the quality of studies? what were your keywords? what document you have searched for? what language did your document have? what was your time limits? what studies had been searched? what were your inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies? you should draw the PRISMA checklist for your research.

why did you checked only CVI? why didn’t check other validity properties? why did you select 18 experts? how do you calculate CVI? why did you select only 6 experts for relability assessment? how did you check the inter-rater agreement and which coefficient did you calculate?

which type of the tool did you design? (checklist, questionnaire, scale,…)

- The descriptions which you have provided in the 3.1 and 3.3 section, are related to tool designing step instead of these two steps, you could provide one step for data gathering via the tool which have been designed in the previous section.

- Interviews with NCNCD and expert team two:

How did you insure data saturation? What is the method of thematic analysis? Did the interview were recorded? How did you checked the rigor of the qualitative phase of your study?

- Data analysis: please explain more details about thematic content analysis with reference.

Result:

- You reported the CVR in tables, but you didn’t describe the assessment method of it in the method section.

- You should report how much item did you generate at the first, and how much items were deleted in the process of content validity assessment.

- You shoud describe how and which Kappa did you assessed in the method section and then report the result only in the result section.

- you should report how many codes, subcategories, main categories and themes did you gathered. how was the process of abstraction of the finding (it is better to report this process as a table or figure)

- You should show how the findings of the two part of your study are related to each other in the finding section, too.

- you should report the analysis of the findings which you gathered with the tool.

Discussion:

- In the first line and paragraph of the discussion section, conclude the goal of your study and the main findings.

- What was your limitations? What is your further researches recommendations? What was your findings implication for practice?

Conclusion

- The conclusion did not cover all the findings of your study.

Appendix:

- the table did not have numbers.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Michael A Stoto

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Samad Azari

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 29;18(6):e0287743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287743.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 May 2023

April 20, 2023

Dear editors;

PLOS ONE

Re: PONE-D-22-28106

Developing an organizational capacity assessment tool and capacity-building package for the National Center for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases in Iran

Dear Editor,

Thank you and the reviewers very much for your recent comments, which provided us

the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have

addressed all the comments in in order that they raised, as you will find them below.

--------------------------------

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

1. Capacity assessment tools are increasingly, and effectively, used by health systems around the globe to assess and improve their capacities to respond to public health emergencies and other problems. Given the prominence of non-communicable diseases, a similar approach to NCD capacities, as described in this paper, is a promising idea. If it were validated, the authors’ tool could be useful in many countries beyond Iran, where it was developed and tested.

Re: Thank you. Non-communicable diseases are the leading cause of premature death, as you mentioned, so researchers, managers, and policymakers must pay close attention to this issue. In WHO statements, this need has been referred to numerous times. The Validity section has been revised to accommodate this comment.

2. However, despite the title (“Developing an organizational capacity assessment tool …”), the parts of paper addressing the performance of the proposed tool are poorly described and I believe under-developed. The methods for assessing the tool’s validity and reliability are given in one-paragraph (Section 2.1) and the related results in another paragraph (the first paragraph in the Results section). Appendix A has only two paragraphs (those immediately preceding Table 2) on methods and results. Overall, I find these paragraphs difficult to follow, both because of substantive reasons and also poor writing. In particular:

• Section 2.1 describes two expert teams, noting that “For the first expert team (18 experts), we selected 12 experts …” The second team has 6 experts, so perhaps that’s the difference, but it’s very hard to follow.

• More substantively, these teams are described in different ways in the main paper and the appendix, but I believe that some work within the relevant ministries and others not. If this is true, the first would be evaluating their own work, so there is a potential for bias. It would be interesting to see if both categories of experts had similar or different ratings, but it is not clear to me that this is done.

• The paper describes formal interviews with the six experts from the second team, but it is not clear whether or how they were used to assess the validity or reliability of the tool. Presumably the discussions on pp. 9-16 is based on these interviews, but these seem to be substantive, and unrelated to assessing the tool’s performance.

Re: Thank you for your comments.

One of the crucial steps in the development of a capacity assessment tool is, as you mentioned, ensuring its validity and reliability. Perhaps because we combined three phases (mentioned below); tool's reliability and validity is not stated clearly:

• Design and validity of the tool

• Tool scoring by stakeholders and the results

• Discussing challenges, opportunities, and solutions using the qualitative approches

Each of these might stand alone as a separate article.

This study is the third part of a larger study, the first two parts of which have been published and can be found at the link below.

1. Assessment and prioritization of the WHO “best buys” and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases in Iran, (Link)

2. Intersectoral collaboration in the management of non-communicable disease’s risk factors in Iran: stakeholders and social network analysis (Link)

We used multiple expert teams during various phases of study

• During tool design (expert team number one) (Table 1 appendix A)

• During tool validity and reliability (expert team number two) (Table 2 appendix A)

• While identifying challenges and opportunities (qualitative phase-expert team number three) (Table 3 appendix A).

Cognitive interviews, CVI, and CVR were used to assess the validity. We added the profiles of experts who participated in the validity and reliability of the tool. The validity and reliability section was revised in the main text and appendix A. Please see to the appendix-A and main text's validity sections. We selected 12 experts for validity and 3+6 experts for reliability.The kappa values show moderate (0.4–0.6) to strong (0.6 and higher) interrater agreement. In the designed tool, experts assign a score to each of the sub-dimensions or questions. Tables 6–11 of the appendix A show the degree of validity for each subdomain. Appendix A-Table 5 shows the reliability values. Many capacity assessment tools use the Kappa test for reliability measurement. Please see the link below for more information.

Link : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900052/

Self-assessments has been widely used in the past for measuring organizational capacity. The evaluated organization's human resources (experts and managers) examine the capacity of the organization to fulfill its duties; and the capacity of the organization is measured rather than individual performance. Examples can be found in the links below.

1. https://usaidlearninglab.org/resources/organizational-capacity-assessment (Description section)

2. https://www.ngoconnect.net/sites/default/files/resources/Organizational%20Capacity%20Self-Assessment%20Tool%20-%20Training%20Guidelines.pdf

3. https://www.jsi.com/resource/organizational-capacity-assessment-oca-tool-participants-copy/

As you can see, many tools have a common main domain, and in the initial cycle of capacity assessment, subdomains focus on the key areas. Subdomain questions may alter in the upcoming cycle of capacity assessment because it is a continuous process.

The boundaries between quantitative and qualitative phases became more clear. This is an explanatory sequential design that has a quantitative phase and a qualitative phase.

3. The paragraph in the Results section refers to Appendix A, Table 1-6. The appendix has only 2 numbered tables, so I can only guess that “Table 1-6” refers to the six un-numbered domain-specific tables.

Re: Thank you. Every table's title in Appendix A has been revised. Please see Appendix-Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Additionally, based on the 12 experts, this Tabels reported the validity (CVI and CVR) of each subdomain.

4. Referring to “Table 2-Appendix A”, the Results section reports on “kappa values for all of the arias (areas?) we tested show, but one see only in the appendix that that the results are based on only three substantive areas (physical activity, cardiovascular disease, and tobacco).

Re:Thank you. Revised. Since the framework, questions, and scoring processes in domains and subdomains are the same in all 7 areas, the study team believed that repetition in one area (two experts) is a more important criterion for measuring reliability. Therefore, we run the test in these three areas. Twice in three area (two experts separately for each).

5. Because of the lack of clarity about methods and results, it is difficult for me to know that the tool is valid and performs well even in the setting in which it was tested.

Re: We revised the method and findings sections and hope that they will be convincing to the reviewers. Please see the Method and Results sections and Appendix A. We are pleased tominform you that the Ministry of Health & Medical of Iran has put some of our recommended interventions (qualitative phase) on agenda, including strengthening the organizational structure.

6. Rather than validating the tool they developed, the authors spend the bulk of the paper in substantive discussion of the six domains (pp. 9-16), providing specific recommendations for organization change. It is not clear to me that these discussions are based on the questionnaire results; rather they seem to be based on the qualitative interviews. The Discussion and Conclusions (pp. 17-18) also primarily address substantive issues. As a methodologist who is not familiar with Iran, I have no way to assess the validity of this discussion. But even if they were valid, they would be of little interest to researchers or practitioners outside of Iran.

Re:We hope the revisions we made have been able to address your concerns. Pages 9–16 contain information from the study's qualitative phase. The qualitative phase was carried out in order to closely examine the organizational weaknesses (as determined by the tool). To make the distinction clear to readers, we changed the headings and defined the boundaries between the quantitative and qualitative phases.

The recommended interventions in the findings and discussion section seem more appropriate for developing countries, where the structures are not yet fully developed and there are severe financial and human resource shortages.

Reviewer #2:

1. Introduction: Given the high prevalence of NCDs noted in the introduction, could you perhaps elaborate on how these conditions interact with the COVID-19 pandemic? Make an effort to use numbers to demonstrate the subject's importance.

More information can be found in the WHO research at https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240010291.

Re: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 crisis caused significant disruption in the delivery of NCD prevention and treatment services. Furthermore, many of those who died as a result of COVID-19 had NCDs or related risk factors. This was mentioned briefly in the introduction. Please see paragraph 3 on page 3.

2. Even when the questions on the COREQ checklist have been addressed, it is still advised to complete and submit this checklist. The table title ("Reported on Page #") invites the authors to provide the page numbers that correspond to each specific item on the checklist.

Re: Thank you. We fulfilled the check list for the study's qualitative parts as a Appendix B. Please see Appendix B

Reviewer #3:

Abstract:

1.Please do not use the abbreviations in the abstract.

Re: Thank you; we revised the abstract. Please see abstract.

2. Please describe what you had done in quantitative and qualitative sections of your study in clear form in design section, separately.

- What is the type of your mixed method design (exploratory? explanatory?)?

Re: Revised in abstract and method section please see page 2-abstract-method and page 4 method section; first paragraph.

3. How do you use and combine the findings of the two parts of the study? Describe it in the method and result.

Re: Please see abstract-method, the first paragraph of the method, the first paragraph of 4. Qualitative phase, and the first paragraph of each DOMAIN in the result section.

4. The conclusion did not cover all the findings of your study.

Re: Revised, please see abstract- conclusion

Introduction

5. The knowledge gap is not well discussed in the introduction section.

- you should report the previous related tool in your research topic and why you want design a new tool.

- The goal is not clear well.

Re: Done. Please see the last paragraph of the introduction.

Method

6. What is the type of your mixed method design (exploratory? explanatory?)? why you select mixed method for your research? Please describe it. What is the qualitative phase and what is the quantitative phase and how this two phases are related and integrated?

Re: Revised in abstract and method section please see page 2-abstract-method and page 4 method section; first paragraph.

7. It is not clear what are the goal of literature review (step 1 in method) and what is the relation of this step to other steps of the study. Is your goal is item generation for the tool?

Re: One of the first steps in capacity assessment and capacity building, which is recommended in many tools, is the initial familiarization with the dimensions of capacity assessment, a general knowledge of the related subject (here NCDs) and a basic knowledge of the organization under investigation.

As a step in that direction, this has been done.

8. Designing Tool (Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool, OCAT):

is there related tool previously?

Re: There is no comprehensive tool available in the field of NCDs for measuring the organizational capacity of the institution in charge of this topic.

There is a survey questionnaire in the topic of national capacity with different dimensions from the one created for this study. And it does not emphasize organizational capability

The WHO questionnaire inquires about the existence of a response strategy for a disease, while our tool looks for the team responsible for developing the strategy and the degree of adherence to it.

While our tool asked questions about the approved organizational structure, parallel institutions, and the institution's position in the overall structure, the WHO questionnaire only inquired about the existence of an institution for NCDs within the ministry. The WHO survey questionnaire was reviewed at as one of the key documents, and its most crucial points were covered in more depth in the tool than the organizational capacity aspect.

Please see the following link.

Link click here

9. what was your search strategy? how did you check the quality of studies? what were your keywords? what document you have searched for? what language did your document have? what was your time limits? what studies had been searched? what were your inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies? you should draw the PRISMA checklist for your research.

Re: Revised. Please see Appendix A-Box B

10. Why did you checked only CVI? why didn’t check other validity properties? why did you select 18 experts? how do you calculate CVI? why did you select only 6 experts for relability assessment? how did you check the inter-rater agreement and which coefficient did you calculate?

which type of the tool did you design? (checklist, questionnaire, scale,…)

Re: Cognitive interviews, CVI, and CVR were used to assess the validity. We added the profiles of experts who participated in the validity and reliability of the tool. The validity and reliability section was revised in the main text and appendix A. Please see to the appendix-A and main text's validity sections. We selected 12 experts for validity and 3+6 experts for reliability.The kappa values show moderate (0.4–0.6) to strong (0.6 and higher) interrater agreement. In the designed tool, experts assign a score to each of the sub-dimensions or questions.

11. The descriptions which you have provided in the 3.1 and 3.3 section, are related to tool designing step instead of these two steps, you could provide one step for data gathering via the tool which have been designed in the previous section.

Re: Revised. Please see section 3.1 . first paragraph

12. Interviews with NCNCD and expert team two:

How did you insure data saturation? What is the method of thematic analysis? Did the interview were recorded? How did you checked the rigor of the qualitative phase of your study?

- Data analysis: please explain more details about thematic content analysis with reference.

Re:. Revised please see section 4. Qualitative phase. After including the expert teams from earlier phases, the third expert team is now relevant for this phase.

Result:

13. You reported the CVR in tables, but you didn’t describe the assessment method of it in the method section.

Re: revised please see validity section of method.

14. You should report how much item did you generate at the first, and how much items were deleted in the process of content validity assessment.

Re: Thank you. Revised please see appendix A section: Validity . ‘’Three of the 18 sub-dimensions or tool questions were modified and their validity was assessed again; including subdomains 3.3; 5.1 and 5.3)’’

15. You shoud describe how and which Kappa did you assessed in the method section and then report the result only in the result section.

Re: Please see Appendix A section of reliability.

16. you should report how many codes, subcategories, main categories and themes did you gathered. how was the process of abstraction of the finding (it is better to report this process as a table or figure)

Re: Revised please see page 8. “Six main themes (domains) and 18 sub-themes (subdomains) were utilized for arranging 438 codes’’

17. You should show how the findings of the two part of your study are related to each other in the finding section, too.

Re: Thank you. Revised. Please see the first paragraph on page 10

18. you should report the analysis of the findings which you gathered with the tool.

Re: Thank you. Revised. Please see the last paragraph on page 8

Discussion:

19. In the first line and paragraph of the discussion section, conclude the goal of your study and the main findings.

Re: Thank you. Revised. Please see first line and paragraph of the discussion section.

20. What was your limitations? What is your further researches recommendations? What was your findings implication for practice?

Re: As previously stated, capacity assessment and capacity building are dynamic processes that must be repeated after the initial intervention. For example, with the changes that are likely to occur probably in the structure of the Ministry of Health, the capacity assessment must be repeated.

Conclusion

21. The conclusion did not cover all the findings of your study.

Re: Revised. Please see Conclusion.

Appendix:

22. the table did not have numbers.

Re: Thank you. Revised. Please see Appendix A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to improve our work. We hope that you and your team will find the revisions up to your satisfaction and look forward to your decision in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Amirhossein Takian, MD MPH Ph.D. FHEA

Professor and Head, Department of Global Health and Public Policy

School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Corresponding author

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 1.docx

Decision Letter 1

Samane Shirahmadi

14 Jun 2023

Developing an organizational capacity assessment tool and capacity-building package for the National Center for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases in Iran

PONE-D-22-28106R1

Dear Dr. Amirhossein Takian ,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Samane Shirahmadi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: please edit the appendix A: some numbers are written in Farsi language.

All the comments have been addressed

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Samad Azari

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Samane Shirahmadi

20 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-28106R1

Developing an organizational capacity assessment tool and capacity-building package for the National Center for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases in Iran

Dear Dr. Takian:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Samane Shirahmadi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Description of the expert teams and validity and reliability of the tool.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Appendix. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES