Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2024 May 2;4(5):e0003168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003168

Reducing non-communicable diseases among Palestinian populations in Gaza: A participatory comparative and cost-effectiveness modeling assessment

Sanjay Basu 1,2,*, John S Yudkin 3, Mohammed Jawad 4, Hala Ghattas 5,6, Bassam Abu Hamad 7, Zeina Jamaluddine 8, Gloria Safadi 5, Marie-Elizabeth Ragi 5, Raeda El Sayed Ahmad 5, Eszter P Vamos 4, Christopher Millett 4,9
Editor: Saifur R Chowdhury10
PMCID: PMC11065248  PMID: 38696423

Abstract

We sought to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of potential new public health and healthcare NCD risk reduction efforts among Palestinians in Gaza. We created a microsimulation model using: (i) a cross-sectional household survey of NCD risk factors among 4,576 Palestinian adults aged ≥40 years old in Gaza; (ii) a modified Delphi process among local public health experts to identify potentially feasible new interventions; and (iii) reviews of intervention cost and effectiveness, modified to the Gazan and refugee contexts. The survey revealed 28.6% tobacco smoking, a 40.4% prevalence of hypertension diagnosis (with a 95.6% medication treatment rate), a 25.6% prevalence of diabetes diagnosis (with 95.3% on treatment), a 21.9% prevalence of dyslipidemia (with 79.6% on a statin), and a 9.8% prevalence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (without known treatment). A calibrated model estimated a loss of 9,516 DALYs per 10,000 population over the 10-year policy horizon. The interventions having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than three times the GDP per capita of Palestine per DALY averted (<$10,992 per DALY averted)(<$10,992 per DALY averted) included bans on tobacco smoking in indoor and public places [$34 per incremental DALY averted (95% CI: $17, $50)], treatment of asthma using low dose inhaled beclometasone and short-acting beta-agonists [$140 per DALY averted (95% CI: $77, $207)], treatment of breast cancer stages I and II [$730 per DALY averted (95% CI: $372, $1,100)], implementing a mass media campaign for healthier nutrition [$737 per DALY averted (95% CI: $403, $1,100)], treatment of colorectal cancer stages I and II [$7,657 per DALY averted (95% CI: $3,721, $11,639)], and (screening with mammography [$17,054 per DALY averted (95% CI: $8,693, $25,359)]). Despite high levels of NCD risk factors among Palestinians in Gaza, we estimated that several interventions would be expected to reduce the loss of DALYs within common cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Introduction

In recent years, the global health community has focused increasing attention on non-communicable disease (NCD) prevention and control. The World Health Organization (WHO) developed a Global Action Plan that aims to reduce premature NCD deaths by 25% by 2025 [1]. A key question for global humanitarian agencies is how to select among these interventions for resource-constrained settings like the Gaza Strip, an area that has faced ongoing conflict, blockade, and economic hardship for over a decade [2].

The Gaza Strip is a densely populated area of about 2 million Palestinian refugees and non-refugees [3]. About two-thirds of the population are refugees and rely on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other aid for basic services. The health system in Gaza is fragmented, with care provided by public, private, and humanitarian groups like UNRWA, which operates 22 primary care centers [4]. However, UNRWA funding cuts threaten healthcare for the refugee population [5]. Several political and structural factors including Israeli policies of enforcing fishing limits, limitations and restrictions on food aid packages, agricultural land use limits, and the restriction of cancer treatment availability have also been documented as impacting on NCDs in Gaza [69].

While NCD prevalence data in Gaza are limited, available evidence suggests increasing rates of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and other risk factors, especially among older adults. For example, 17.4% of those over 40 have hypertension and 11.8% have diabetes [10]. Tobacco use is also common, with 9% of youth and 40% of men using some form of tobacco [10]. Over the last several years, major strides have been made by UNRWA and other healthcare authorities to treat blood pressure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, such that rates of hypertension treatment and control have increased dramatically, as has the use of statin therapy [11]. These CVD secondary prevention interventions are considered highly effective and cost-effective [12]. Other NCD risk-reduction interventions–particularly those directed at the societal level (such as used to improve nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco use), and for non-CVD NCDs (particularly cancers and lung diseases)—have lagged in planning and implementation in Gaza.

In this study, utilizing data from a newly available cross-sectional household survey of both refugee and non-refugee populations, we created a microsimulation model to assist in comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of potential new public health and healthcare NCD risk reduction efforts in Gaza, to follow the efforts of the last few years that focused primarily on medication treatments for CVD. We identified which interventions to compare through a modified Delphi process among a panel of local experts who identified the subset of WHO-recommended interventions that could feasibly be delivered in the Gazan setting. We then compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions under different budget ceilings, based on a household cross-sectional health and nutrition survey, local cost data, and reviews of intervention effectiveness. We sought to provide insights into the interventions for NCD prevention and control within the resource-constrained Gazan context for consideration by UNRWA and related policymakers.

Methods

We created and applied a microsimulation model using three sources of data: (i) a cross-sectional household survey providing information about baseline characteristics and NCD risk factors among the Palestinian population in Gaza; (ii) a modified Delphi process for local public health experts to identify potentially feasible interventions for modeling NCD risk reduction strategies in Gaza, including associated costs; and (iii) reviews and meta-analyses of intervention effectiveness, with modifications for the Gazan and refugee contexts. We utilized the model to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the studied interventions. The study was approved by Al-Quds University, the Imperial College Research Ethics Committee (20IC5733), the American University of Beirut Institutional Review Board, the Gaza Helsinki Committee (PHRC/HC/483/19), and the UNRWA research review board. Due to armed conflict and COVID-19, leading to academic department closures and study personnel migration, the study extended over the period 2020–2023, with dates of individual study components detailed below.

Data sources

Cross-sectional household survey

We conducted an interviewer-administered, face-to-face household survey in Gaza among adults aged 40 years and older. A sampling frame was drawn from enumeration areas of the 2017 Population and Housing Census and used as the basis for a random multistage, stratified cluster sampling approach to produce representative data of the Gazan population [13]. We specifically selected enumeration areas (the primary sampling units) from each sampling stratum (North Gaza, Gaza, Dier Al Balah, Khan Yunis, and Rafah governorates) and calculated the sample size as 4,520 participants from 2,443 households to detect within rounding error the estimated prevalence of coronary artery disease (11.3%) [9], assuming a response rate of 90.0% and design effect of 1.5.

We applied survey tools based on established approaches to household surveys, adapted to the local context, translated into Palestinian Arabic dialect, back-translated into English to test validity, and pilot tested in a random subset of households. The survey tool included an individual questionnaire with modules on sociodemographics, NCD history, and tobacco use–including the WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE) Survey on sociodemographics and NCD history (including self-reported history of diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and cancer) [14, 15], and the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (including cigarette and waterpipe use) [16]—both of which have versions validated in Arabic. Height, weight, and three blood pressure readings were obtained among all sampled individuals using validated instruments per the WHO SAGE protocol. A final sample size of 4,576 individuals across 2,445 households was achieved, with the recruitment period and data collection occurring between March 18 and July 15, 2020. A subset of 1,938 patients also had laboratory blood test results available from UNRWA clinics (specifically, creatinine, lipid panel and hemoglobin A1c) which were linked to the survey by individual participant unique identifiers and accessed for research purposes on July 14, 2020. Using anonymized identifiers, the authors did not have access to information that could identify individual participants during or after data collection.

Modified Delphi process

We conducted a modified Delphi process with a panel of 34 local public health experts in Gaza to review the WHO list of 85 recommended interventions for NCDs and determine which are most feasible in the Gaza context [17, 18]. The panel included representatives from the Ministry of Health, local universities, and non-governmental organizations with experience in NCD prevention and control in Gaza.

First, panelists were provided with the list of WHO NCD interventions and asked to score each intervention on a scale of 1 to 9 for ‘feasibility’ in Gaza, where 1 is ‘not feasible’ and 9 is ‘highly feasible.’ Panelists were also asked open-ended questions about challenges, costs, and implementation logistics associated with each intervention [18]. Responses were analyzed and summarized by the research team.

Next, panelists received a summary report with the first round of results and were asked to re-score each intervention after reviewing the input from the other panelists. They were also asked to highlight interventions they consider highest priorities for cost-effectiveness modeling.

The research team reviewed the results from two rounds of discussion to determine which interventions emerged as most feasible, taking into account both the quantitative scores and qualitative input on feasibility and prioritization. The research team extracted from the panelists’ open-ended responses a list of factors that would need to be incorporated into cost-effectiveness modeling for the priority interventions. These include costs related to program delivery, health system and infrastructure logistics, challenges in changing behaviors and social norms, and indirect costs of the interventions [19]. The Delphi process was conducted in July and September 2021.

Modeling methods

Modeling followed the 2022 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS, S1 Table) [20]. A microsimulation model was constructed, which is a population-representative, individual-level model that simulated the life-course of each person across ages 40 years and older in the Palestinian population of Gaza and computed their disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost to NCDs without and with the selected interventions, and the costs of the interventions, over a 10-year policy time horizon from a societal perspective [9, 20, 21]. The incremental cost-effectiveness in 2023 international dollars per DALY averted was computed as each individual intervention was compared to the current status-quo level of exposure to that intervention per the survey, at a 3% annual discount rate for both dollars and DALYs.

We estimated the individual risk of each of the five major NCDs in the Palestinian population in Gaza (cardiovascular disease consisting of coronary heart disease or stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus, asthma/COPD, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer) by using common risk scores derived from individual risk factors and validated in multi-ethnic populations including Middle Eastern or Arabic-speaking populations, calibrated to the estimated incidence of each disease by age and sex in the Palestinian population in Gaza [22]. For cardiovascular disease, we used the Globorisk score (averaging the laboratory-based risk scores from Jordan, Lebanon and Syria given the absence of a Palestine-specific model) [23]; for diabetes, the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) validated among Middle-Eastern populations [24, 25]; for asthma/COPD, a multivariate risk model with self-reported history of asthma/COPD and history of exposure to smoke as variables for the relative risk of morbidity or mortality from asthma or COPD with age [2629]; for breast cancer, the Gail Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRT) validated among Middle-Eastern populations [3032]; and for colorectal cancer, the ColoRectal Cancer Predicted Risk Online (CRC-PRO) risk calculator [33]. Calibration to the Palestinian population in Gaza was performed by computing each risk score across each individual in the population-representative study sample, then scaling the risk scores to achieve the estimated incidence of each NCD in the Palestinian population from the Global Burden of Disease project [22]. For risk scores, missing data were imputed using multiple imputation with chained equations, leveraging a classification and regression tree model [34].

The reduction in risk of each NCD based on each intervention was assessed by a review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [35]. For each intervention, we reviewed the available meta-analytic estimates of the intervention’s effect on disease incidence and mortality (see S1 Text). We started with the WHO’s literature review that led to the WHO’s recommendation of the intervention [1, 17], and expanded the review on PubMed.gov and Google Scholar, as well as using two artificial intelligence tools (elicit.org and consensus.app) that enabled finding of original research articles, reviews, and meta-analyses for each of the interventions.

We assessed costs related to each intervention. Direct costs were assessed using the WHO Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (CHOICE) approach [19], which considers both individual-level and program-level costs. Individual-level costs included medications, diagnostics, health facility visits and associated materials and personnel expenditures per individual exposed to the intervention. Program-level costs included costs of administration, monitoring and evaluation, supervision and training. We used the WHO list of 14 publicly available datasets for non-traded cost variables (locally-produced or human resources) as well as traded items (purchased on the market) within Gaza, using data from UNRWA where available. Costs unavailable in Gaza were obtained from other Middle Eastern countries, then adjusted by the GDP purchasing power parity per capita between the other countries and Palestine [36].

We computed DALYs associated with each NCD by using the disability weights estimated from the Global Burden of Disease project for each NCD [37], and computing the incidence of the NCD in each simulated individual based on the risk of the NCD given their individual-level risk factors per the survey and associated risk score for each NCD, net of competing risks.

The model was programed in R in May through July of 2023, with code shared online alongside a pre-specified protocol at: https://github.com/sanjaybasu/ncdgaza

Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis

Sensitivity analysis was performed on the population reach of each intervention. Population reach was simulated by collecting information in the review on the range of practical achievement of access to prior interventions among refugee populations in Gaza, and varying the intervention benefits in the model to the associated subset of the population, starting from a 64% reach rate with a linear implementation period over the 10 year time horizon [38].

Uncertainty analysis was performed by repeatedly sampling with replacement 10,000 times from normal distributions constructed from the mean and standard deviation of each input parameter value and re-running the model with each sample to identify the mean and 95% credible interval around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each intervention [39].

Results

Characteristics of the study population

The cross-sectional household survey produced data on 4,576 adults across 2,445 households. The surveyed population had a mean age of 57.1 years old (SD: 10.2, range: 40–80), of which 2,473 people (54.0%) identified as women, and 3,136 (68.5%) identified as refugees, paralleling the 2017 Census [13]. The self-reported prevalence of common NCDs and NCD risk factors (Table 1) included: 25.6% of people reporting a diagnosis of diabetes (n = 1,172), 40.4% of people reporting hypertension (n = 1,849), 21.9% reporting dyslipidemia (n = 1,001), and 9.8% reporting asthma or COPD (n = 449). Of those reporting a diagnosis of diabetes, 95.3% (n = 1,117) reported taking a prescribed medication for diabetes; among those with hypertension, 95.6% (n = 1,767) reported taking a prescribed medication for hypertension; among those with dyslipidemia, 79.6% (n = 796) reported taking a statin; but among those with asthma/COPD, none reported controller medication use.

Table 1. Characteristics of the study population of Palestinians in Gaza per household survey of ages 40+ years old (2020).

Male Female Standardized mean difference
n 2103 2473
Age, yrs, mean (SD) 58.6 (10.2) 55.4 (10.5) 0.308
Diabetes diagnosis, n (%) 525 (25.0) 647 (26.2) 0.027
Diabetes medications, n (%) 498 (23.7) 619 (25.0) 0.031
Hypertension diagnosis, n (%) 798 (37.9) 1051 (42.5) 0.093
Hypertension medications, n (%) 761 (36.2) 1006 (40.7) 0.092
Systolic blood pressure, mmHg (SD) 132.2 (17.1) 128.0 (18.7) 0.235
Dyslipidemia diagnosis, n (%) 450 (21.4) 551 (22.3) 0.021
Statin medication, n (%) 492 (23.4) 552 (22.3) 0.026
Asthma/COPD diagnosis, n (%) 212 (10.1) 237 (9.6) 0.017
Tobacco smoking, n (%) 1280 (60.9) 29 (1.2) 1.689
Water pipe smoking, n (%) 304 (14.5) 22 (0.9) 0.527
Body mass index, kg/m^2, mean (SD) 28.9 (5.4) 33.5 (6.4) 0.779
Subset with laboratory values
n 785 1153
Total cholesterol, mg/dL, mean (SD) 170.5 (38.8) 181.9 (40.5) 0.287
Triglycerides, mg/dL, mean (SD) 178.8 (144.1) 167.4 (121.5) 0.086
Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, mg/dL, mean (SD) 106.3 (37.7) 112.9 (39.2) 0.171
High-density lipoprotein cholesterol, mg/dL, mean (SD) 41.5 (14.0) 46.5 (16.5) 0.326
Serum creatinine, mg/dL (SD) 1.0 (0.5) 0.8 (0.4) 0.439
Hemoglobin A1c, mean % (SD), among those with diabetes 13.3 (1.5) 11.5 (1.4) 1.201

Laboratory values and exam-based measurements are also shown in Table 1. Mean hemoglobin A1c was 12.4% (SD: 1.8%), with a mean of 12.5% (SD: 1.7%) among those reporting a previous diabetes diagnosis and 12.5% (SD: 1.7%) among those reporting both a diagnosis and taking diabetes medications. Mean systolic blood pressure in the sample was 130.0 mmHg (SD: 18.1 mmHg), with a mean of 136.3 mmHg (SD: 18.4 mmHg) among those reporting a diagnosis of hypertension and 136.1 mmHg (SD: 18.3 mmHg) among those reporting both a hypertension diagnosis and hypertension medication use. Mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol was 107.5 mg/dL (SD: 38.1 mg/dL), with a mean of 111.6 mg/dL (SD: 40.1 mg/dL) among those reporting a dyslipidemia diagnosis, and 111.8 mg/dL (SD: 40.4 mg/dL) among those reporting both a dyslipidemia diagnosis and treatment with a statin. The prevalence of tobacco smoking was 28.6% (n = 1,309, mostly among men with 1,280 males smoking; 60.9%), and water pipe smoking was 7.1% (n = 329, with 304 being male). Mean body mass index was 31.4 kg/m^2 (SD: 6.4 kg/m^2).

Interventions selected by Delphi process

The Delphi process among the 85 WHO-recommended NCD interventions resulted in the selection of 12 interventions, of which nine were judged to be feasible for modeling (Table 2). The modeling-amenable interventions were in the WHO NCD intervention domains of reducing tobacco use; unhealthy diet; physical inactivity; managing cancer; and managing chronic respiratory disease.

Table 2. Interventions selected via the modified Delphi process among local experts on public health in Gaza, 2021.

World Health Organization NCD category Intervention number and description per World Health Organization NCD Intervention List, selected by modified Delphi process Considered feasible for modeling cost-effectiveness in Gaza, per modeling team?
Reduce tobacco use 1.4 Eliminate exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in all indoor workplaces, public places, public transport Yes
Reduce unhealthy diet 2.11 Implement nutrition education and counseling in different settings (for example, in preschools, schools, workplaces and hospitals) to increase the intake of fruits and vegetables Yes
2.13 Implement mass media campaign on healthy diets, including social marketing to reduce the intake of total fat, saturated fats, sugars and salt, and promote the intake of fruits and vegetables Yes
Reduce physical inactivity 3.1 Implement community wide public education and awareness campaign for physical activity which includes a mass media campaign combined with other community based education, motivational and environmental programmes aimed at supporting behavioral change of physical activity levels Yes
3.2 Provide physical activity counseling and referral as part of routine primary health care services through the use of a brief intervention Yes
3.4 Implement whole-of-school programme that includes quality physical education, availability of adequate facilities and programs to support physical activity for all children No, insufficient data on school facilities in Gaza
Manage cancer 6.2 Screening with mammography (once every 2 years for women aged 50–69 years) linked with timely diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer Yes
6.3 Treatment of colorectal cancer stages I and II with surgery +/- chemotherapy and radiotherapy Yes
6.4 Treatment of breast cancer stages I and II with surgery +/- systemic therapy Yes
Manage chronic respiratory disease 7.3 Treatment of asthma using low dose inhaled beclometasone and short acting beta agonist Yes
Enhancing psychosocial and mental health status 8.2 Screening and identification of risky cases No, insufficient survey data on risk and intervention impact of screening
Enforcing governance of services for adequate prevention, screening, and management of NCDs (like better regulatory measures, increasing coordination and fiscal measures) 9.1.5 Using standardized protocols and guidelines for screening, diagnosis and management No, insufficient data on impact of standardization

Model-based comparative and cost-effectiveness estimates

The calibrated model estimated a loss of 9,516 (95% CI: 7,947, 11,201) DALYs per 10,000 population over the 10-year policy horizon. Among the NCDs simulated, the greatest loss of DALYs was from CVD (3,718 DALYs lost per 10,000; 95% CI: 3,299, 4,174), followed by diabetes (2,088 DALYs lost per 10,000; 95% CI: 1,787, 2,402), then asthma/COPD (1,856 DALYs lost per 10,000; 95% CI: 1,465, 2,270; Table 3).

Table 3. Simulation modeling results of the incidence, mortality and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) associated with several non-communicable diseases among the Palestinian population of Gaza over a 10-year time horizon among 10,000 adults aged 40 years and older, 2023.

Total Change from baseline
Condition Incidence Mortality DALYs Incidence Mortality DALYs
Baseline
CVD 3417 (3334, 3512) 163 (140, 190) 3718 (3299, 4174) NA NA NA
Diabetes 1393 (1327, 1463) 294 (258, 331) 2088 (1787, 2402) NA NA NA
COPD/Asthma 699 (651, 746) 86 (69, 105) 1856 (1465, 2270) NA NA NA
Breast Cancer 90 (74, 110) 48 (35, 63) 900 (639, 1190) NA NA NA
Colorectal Cancer 114 (94, 136) 84 (67, 102) 954 (757, 1165) NA NA NA
Total 5713 (5480, 5967) 675 (569, 791) 9516 (7947, 11201) NA NA NA
1.4 Eliminate exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in all indoor workplaces, public places, public transport
CVD 3114 (3027, 3202) 149 (125, 173) 3314 (2896, 3743) -303 (-307, -310) -14 (-15, -17) -404 (-403, -431)
Diabetes 1393 (1327, 1463) 294 (258, 331) 2088 (1787, 2403) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
COPD/Asthma 688 (638, 736) 85 (68, 103) 1827 (1439, 2254) -11 (-13, -10) -1 (-1, -2) -29 (-26, -16)
Breast Cancer 90 (74, 110) 48 (35, 63) 900 (639, 1191) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Colorectal Cancer 114 (94, 136) 84 (67, 102) 954 (757, 1165) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Total 5399 (5160, 5647) 660 (553, 772) 9083 (7518, 10756) -314 (-320, -320) -15 (-16, -19) -433 (-429, -445)
2.11 Implement nutrition education and counseling in different settings (for example, in preschools, schools, workplaces and hospitals) to increase the intake of fruits and vegetables
CVD 3408 (3325, 3500) 163 (138, 189) 3706 (3295, 4159) -9 (-9, -12) -1 (-2, 0) -12 (-4, -15)
Diabetes 1390 (1326, 1460) 294 (258, 331) 2084 (1781, 2399) -3 (-1, -3) 0 (0, 0) -4 (-6, -3)
COPD/Asthma 699 (651, 746) 86 (70, 105) 1856 (1466, 2270) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Breast Cancer 90 (74, 110) 48 (35, 63) 898 (639, 1188) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Colorectal Cancer 114 (94, 136) 84 (67, 102) 953 (756, 1165) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Total 5701 (5470, 5952) 675 (568, 790) 9497 (7937, 11181) -12 (-10, -15) -1 (-2, 0) -16 (-10, -20)
2.13 Implement mass media campaign on healthy diets, including social marketing to reduce the intake of total fat, saturated fats, sugars and salt, and promote the intake of fruits and vegetables
CVD 3403 (3320, 3495) 163 (138, 189) 3699 (3289, 4154) -14 (-14, -17) -1 (-2, 0) -19 (-10, -20)
Diabetes 1389 (1324, 1458) 293 (257, 331) 2081 (1779, 2397) -4 (-3, -5) -1 (-1, 0) -5 (-8, -5)
COPD/Asthma 699 (651, 746) 86 (69, 105) 1856 (1466, 2270) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Breast Cancer 90 (74, 110) 48 (35, 63) 898 (639, 1188) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) -1 (-2, 0)
Colorectal Cancer 114 (94, 135) 84 (67, 102) 952 (756, 1165) 0 (0, -1) 0 (0, 0) -1 (-2, 0)
Total 5695 (5463, 5944) 674 (566, 790) 9486 (7929, 11174) -18 (-17, -23) -2 (-3, -1) -26 (-18, -27)
3.1 Implement community wide public education and awareness campaign for physical activity which includes a mass media campaign combined with other community based education, motivational and environmental programmes aimed at supporting behavioral change of physical activity levels
CVD 3406 (3324, 3499) 163 (138, 189) 3703 (3294, 4156) -11 (-10, -13) -1 (-2, 0) -15 (-5, -18)
Diabetes 1388 (1323, 1456) 293 (256, 331) 2079 (1778, 2397) -5 (-4, -7) -1 (-2, 0) -9 (-9, -5)
COPD/Asthma 696 (648, 744) 86 (68, 105) 1849 (1464, 2264) -3 (-3, -2) 0 (-1, 0) -7 (-1, -13)
Breast Cancer 90 (74, 110) 48 (35, 63) 897 (639, 1184) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) -3 (0, -6)
Colorectal Cancer 113 (93, 135) 84 (66, 102) 951 (750, 1165) -1 (-1, -1) 0 (-1, 0) -3 (-7, 0)
Total 5693 (5462, 5944) 674 (563, 790) 9479 (7925, 11166) -20 (-18, -23) -1 (-6, -1) -37 (-22, -42)
3.2 Provide physical activity counseling and referral as part of routine primary health care services through the use of a brief intervention
CVD 3389 (3304, 3475) 162 (137, 188) 3680 (3245, 4131) -28 (-30, -27) -1 (-3, -2) -38 (-54, -33)
Diabetes 1378 (1314, 1446) 291 (255, 329) 2064 (1757, 2390) -15 (-13, -17) -3 (-3, -2) -24 (-30, -12)
COPD/Asthma 692 (643, 740) 85 (68, 104) 1838 (1456, 2262) -7 (-8, -6) -1 (-1, -1) -18 (-9, -27)
Breast Cancer 90 (73, 109) 47 (34, 63) 894 (637, 1183) -1 (-2, 0) -1 (-1, 0) -6 (-2, -7)
Colorectal Cancer 113 (93, 134) 83 (66, 101) 946 (745, 1161) -1 (-1, -2) -1 (-1, -1) -8 (-12, -4)
Total 5662 (5427, 5904) 668 (560, 785) 9422 (7840, 11127) -51 (-53, -63) -7 (-9, -6) -94 (-107, -93)
6.2 Screening with mammography (once every 2 years for women aged 50–69 years)
CVD 3417 (3334, 3512) 163 (140, 190) 3718 (3299, 4175) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Diabetes 1393 (1327, 1463) 294 (258, 331) 2088 (1787, 2403) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
COPD/Asthma 699 (651, 746) 86 (69, 105) 1856 (1466, 2270) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Breast Cancer 90 (74, 110) 43 (31, 56) 813 (580, 1063) 0 (0, 0) -5 (-4, -7) -87 (-59, -127)
Colorectal Cancer 114 (94, 136) 84 (67, 102) 954 (757, 1165) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Total 5713 (5480, 5967) 670 (565, 784) 9429 (7889, 11076) 0 (0, 0) -5 (-4, -7) -87 (-58, -125)
6.3 Treatment of colorectal cancer stages I and II with surgery +/- chemotherapy and radiotherapy
CVD 3417 (3334, 3512) 163 (140, 190) 3718 (3300, 4175) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Diabetes 1393 (1327, 1463) 294 (258, 331) 2088 (1787, 2403) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
COPD/Asthma 699 (651, 746) 86 (69, 105) 1856 (1466, 2270) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Breast Cancer 90 (74, 110) 47 (35, 63) 900 (639, 1191) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Colorectal Cancer 114 (94, 136) 70 (54, 87) 794 (609, 988) 0 (0, 0) -14 (-13, -15) -160 (-148, -177)
Total 5713 (5480, 5967) 660 (556, 776) 9356 (7801, 11027) 0 (0, 0) -15 (-13, -15) -160 (-146, -174)
6.4 Treatment of breast cancer stages I and II with surgery +/- systemic therapy
CVD 3417 (3334, 3512) 163 (140, 190) 3718 (3300, 4175) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Diabetes 1393 (1327, 1463) 294 (258, 331) 2088 (1787, 2403) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
COPD/Asthma 699 (651, 746) 86 (69, 105) 1856 (1466, 2270) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Breast Cancer 90 (74, 110) 36 (25, 49) 683 (459, 932) 0 (0, 0) -12 (-10, -14) -217 (-180, -258)
Colorectal Cancer 114 (94, 136) 84 (67, 102) 954 (757, 1165) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Total 5713 (5480, 5967) 663 (559, 777) 9299 (7769, 10945) 0 (0, 0) -12 (-10, -14) -217 (-178, -256)
7.3 Treatment of asthma using low dose inhaled beclometasone and short acting beta agonist
CVD 3417 (3334, 3512) 163 (140, 190) 3718 (3300, 4175) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Diabetes 1393 (1327, 1463) 294 (258, 331) 2088 (1787, 2403) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
COPD/Asthma 666 (615, 715) 82 (64, 100) 1766 (1380, 2173) -33 (-36, -31) -4 (-5, -3) -90 (-85, -97)
Breast Cancer 90 (74, 110) 48 (35, 63) 900 (639, 1191) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Colorectal Cancer 114 (94, 136) 84 (67, 102) 954 (757, 1165) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Total 5680 (5444, 5936) 671 (564, 786) 9426 (7863, 11107) -33 (-36, -31) -4 (-5, -3) -90 (-84, -94)

cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

For ease of reading, we have ordered the presentation of results from interventions with the lowest incremental cost per DALY averted to the highest. Fig 1A and Fig 1B display the incremental cost and DALYs averted for each of the simulated interventions over the 10-year time horizon, per 10,000 Palestinian people aged 40+ years in Gaza.

Fig 1. Cost-effectiveness plane for selected non-communicable disease interventions among the Palestinian population of Gaza over a 10-year time horizon among 10,000 adults aged 40 years and older, 2023.

Fig 1

Incremental disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) and incremental costs are presented at a 3% annual discount rate, with dollars expressed in 2023 International dollars. Cardiovascular disease (CVD). Intervention labels correspond to Table 2. (A) Across all interventions; (B) Zooming in on the lower left quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane.

Eliminate exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in all indoor workplaces, public places, and public transport

The simulation of eliminating exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in indoor workspaces, public places and public transport reduced the loss of DALYs by 433 (95% CI: 429, 445; Table 3), primarily from reduced CVD (404 DALYs, 95% CI: 403, 431), then reduced asthma and COPD (29, 95% CI: 16, 29). At a mean cost of $0.20 per person per year, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the intervention was $34 per incremental DALY averted (95% CI: $17, $50).

Treatment of asthma using low dose inhaled beclometasone and short acting beta agonist

Treatment of asthma using low dose inhaled beclometasone and short acting beta agonist reduced the loss of DALYs by 90 (95% CI: 84, 94) entirely through reduced asthma/COPD exacerbation incidence and mortality. At a mean cost of $24 per person per year with asthma or COPD, the ICER for the intervention was $140 per DALY averted (95% CI: $77, $207).

Treatment of breast cancer stages I and II with surgery +/- systemic therapy

Treatment of breast cancer stages I and II reduced the loss of DALYs by 217 (95% CI: 178, 256) entirely through reduced breast cancer mortality. At a mean cost of $1,423 per person with incident breast cancer stages I or II, the ICER for the intervention was $730 per DALY averted (95% CI: $372, $1,100).

Implement a mass media campaign on healthy diets, including social marketing to reduce the intake of total fat, saturated fats, sugars and salt, and promote the intake of fruits and vegetables

The simulation of implementing a mass media campaign on healthy diets reduced the loss of DALYs by 30 (95% CI: 18, 37), primarily through reduced CVD (19 DALYs, 95% CI: 10, 20), followed by reduced diabetes (7 DALYs, 95% CI: 5, 8). At a mean cost of $0.30 per person per year for the intervention, the ICER for the intervention was $737 per DALY averted (95% CI: $403, $1,100).

Treatment of colorectal cancer stages I and II with surgery +/- chemotherapy and radiotherapy

Treatment of colorectal cancer stages I and II reduced the loss of DALYs by 160 (95% CI: 146, 174) entirely through reduced colorectal cancer mortality. At a mean cost of $14,736 per person with incident colorectal cancer stages I or II, the ICER for the intervention was $7,657 per DALY averted (95% CI: $3,721, $11,639).

Implement nutrition education and counseling in different settings (for example, in preschools, schools, workplaces and hospitals) to increase the intake of fruits and vegetables

The simulation of implementing nutrition education and counseling in schools, workplaces and hospitals to increase the intake of fruits and vegetables reduced the loss of DALYs by 19 (95% CI: 10, 20), primarily through reduced CVD (12 DALYs, 95% CI: 4, 15), then diabetes (3, 95% CI: 1, 3). At a mean cost of $4 per person per year, the ICER for the intervention was $14,840 per incremental DALY averted (95% CI: $11,343, $18,115).

Screening with mammography (once every 2 years for women aged 50–69 years)

Screening with mammography reduced the loss of DALYs by 87 (95% CI: 48, 125) entirely through reduced breast cancer incidence and mortality. At a mean cost of $20 per person per year (after accounting for the every-two-year rate and the proportion of the population who are female), the ICER for the intervention was $17,054 per DALY averted (95% CI: $8,693, $25,359).

Implement community wide public education and awareness campaign for physical activity which includes a mass media campaign combined with other community based education, motivational and environmental programmes aimed at supporting behavioral change of physical activity levels

Implementing a community wide public education and awareness campaign for physical activity reduced the loss of DALYs by 37 (95% CI: 22, 42), primarily through reduced CVD (15 DALYs, 95% CI: 5, 18), followed by diabetes (9 DALYs, 95% CI: 5, 9), asthma/COPD (7 DALYs, 95% CI: 1, 13), breast cancer (3 DALYs, 95% CI: 0, 6) and colorectal cancer (3 DALYs, 95% CI: 0, 7). At a mean cost of $19 per person per year, the ICER for the intervention was $38,025 per DALY averted (95% CI: $19,898, $55,680).

Provide physical activity counseling and referral as part of routine primary health care services through the use of a brief intervention

Providing physical activity counseling and referral as part of routine primary care reduced the loss of DALYs by 94 (95% CI: 93, 107), primarily through reduced CVD (38 DALYs, 95% CI: 43, 54), then diabetes (24 DALYs, 95% CI: 12, 30), COPD/asthma (18 DALYs, 95% CI: 9, 27), breast cancer (6 DALYs, 95% CI: 2, 7), and colorectal cancer (8 DALYS, 4, 12). At a cost of $110 per person per year, the ICER for the intervention was $86,023 (95% CI: $77,771, $93,740). The greatest uncertainty and range of costs (as shown in Fig 1) was for the primary care-based physical activity interventions, given a range of possible costs for training and labor for additional personnel to deliver the intervention, as discussed further in S1 Text.

Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses

Sensitivity analyses varying the population reach of each intervention had a linear effect on DALYs and costs, not changing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among interventions. Uncertainty analyses are reflected in the 95% credible intervals around the mean results.

Discussion

We utilized data from a cross-sectional household survey of both refugee and non-refugee populations in Gaza and found high levels of NCD risk factors and common diseases, along with high treatment rates for hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia. Through a modified Delphi process, we further gathered from a panel of local experts that a set of further NCD interventions–related to population-level interventions to promote nutrition, physical activity and reduced tobacco use, alongside improved screening and treatment for asthma/COPD and cancers–were of key interest to further address NCDs. Based on a microsimulation model, we found that several WHO-recommended interventions of interest to local experts were expected to reduce the loss of DALYs from NCDs by between 30 and 433 DALYs, with a wide-ranging ICER from as low as $34 per DALY averted (for a indoor and public place tobacco ban, which had high impact but low cost to implement) to as high as $86,023 (for physical activity counseling in primary care, which had low impact despite moderate cost). The interventions having less than three times the GDP per capita of Palestine per DALY averted (<$10,992 per capita [36]) included indoor/public tobacco bans, nutrition education and counseling in schools and workspaces, mass media on healthy diets, treatment of breast or colorectal cancer stages I and II, and treatment of asthma/COPD. For reference, pharmacotherapy-based services to treat hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia per WHO guidelines have been previously found to have ICERs around $7,200 to $16,700 per DALY averted in low- and middle-income countries, per our prior assessment [40].

Our analysis helps to inform the second wave of NCD control efforts within UNRWA and other Gaza-focused public health and healthcare entities. The first wave of efforts focused on highly effective and cost-effective expansion of hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes treatments. Consistent with the first wave effort, the household study we studied revealed high levels of treatment among those diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia. Further primary prevention efforts in the public sphere and secondary prevention or treatment efforts for non-CVD NCDs have lagged behind. Our study reveals high interest in such efforts, as well as both potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such interventions in the Gazan context. It is notable that Palestine (including both the West Bank and Gaza) is not mentioned in the recent tables compiling the NCD national capacity policies, strategies and action plans for the WHO, but our current assessment suggests that such prioritization may be feasible and important from a public health perspective [41, 42].

There are several limitations to our analysis. The largest limitation is that the analysis presented here was conducted prior to the October 2023 invasion of Gaza by Israeli forces, which profoundly changed the demographics and population health of the Gaza population. At the time of this writing in February 2024, more than 25,000 people have been killed according to the Gazan health ministry, and the United Nations has warned of a large-scale humanitarian crisis due to lack of food, housing, and clean water among other basic needs [43]. We cannot clearly anticipate what changes to communicable and non-communicable disease will take place in Gaza as a result of this escalation in conflict [44], but we can be certain that healthcare and public health infrastructure has been severely damaged and constrained, making our assessment of longer-term investments all the more important. Additionally, it is notable that the expert participants in our Delphi process identified that even prior to the recent conflict, there was insufficient data to assess the prevalence of different mental health needs among the population; no doubt the needs will have increased since the recent escalation in conflict. Much of our analysis also focused on advising UNRWA, yet since the conflict started, UNRWA has faced significant reductions in their ability to operate healthcare centers while simultaneously facing overwhelming demand, and it remains unclear whether and how UNRWA will be able to rebuild its infrastructure and capabilities in the future [45].

Beyond the immediate conflict, the cross-sectional survey used to understand the prevalence of disease was focused on adults over 40 years of age, yet it is known that as societal changes occur in Palestine, NCDs also appear among younger populations. Additionally, laboratory data were only available for a subset of participants, subject to the selection of healthcare providers who had obtained laboratory measurements among those typically diagnosed with NCDs (e.g., hemoglobin A1c was primarily obtained among those diagnosed with diabetes). Our modeling efforts were based on meta-analytic data among those outside of Palestine, adjusted for the typical population reach of public health and healthcare interventions in Gaza. Nevertheless the effectiveness in Gaza would be expected to vary in the Gazan context based on how well such efforts may be culturally tailored and effectively disseminated to the population. Additionally, the costs of interventions were based on the closest-available cost estimates in the Middle East, adjusted for the purchasing power parity in Palestine. Further costs may be imposed on public health and healthcare entities operating in Palestine based on the impact on the supply chain of conflicts. Conversely, UNRWA and other international agencies have secured lower prices for some healthcare treatments given economies of scale in bulk purchasing. All of our modeling was based on risk models whose validity can vary among different ethnic subpopulations, and therefore our calibration to the incidence and mortality trends in Palestine may nevertheless not account for individual-level variations in risk. Finally, the impact of change in food assistance has many political and structural uncertainties as agricultural land in Gaza is very limited, and we have separately modeled the cost-effectiveness of changing the nutritional content of food aid packages to assist in nutrition improvement in the area, finding high uncertainty in the outcomes depending on approval processes for package content [9]. The potential cost-effectiveness of education, counseling and mass media on diets in Gaza, while considered feasible per the Delphi process, also had high uncertainty because of structural barriers that may play a role in being able to put these educational recommendations to practice, including availability and access of food.

Conclusions

While effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain in a conflict setting, our modeling efforts can help inform the relative scale of intervention impact and provide a sense of the degree of uncertainty when planning public health and healthcare interventions with best available data. Under the highly uncertain context of planning for health improvements among Palestinians in Gaza, our findings suggest a need for further expansion of NCD interventions, particularly in the planning of healthcare system re-building after conflict.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. Inclusivity in global research.

(DOCX)

pgph.0003168.s001.docx (64.8KB, docx)
S1 Text

(DOCX)

pgph.0003168.s002.docx (45.7KB, docx)
S1 Table. CHEERS checklist.

(DOCX)

pgph.0003168.s003.docx (17.7KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics for their methodological support, UNRWA for sharing laboratory data, and the tremendous efforts of our data collectors and field supervisors in the Gaza Strip who showed courage, resilience, and dedication to conduct this survey in the most challenging of circumstances. The authors would like to express their deepest appreciation to the survey participants and expert panel who contributed to this study. Participants were most generous in sharing their time and experiences.

Data Availability

Data associated with this paper are available without restriction at https://github.com/sanjaybasu/ncdgaza.

Funding Statement

This study was jointly funded by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and Wellcome Trust’s Health Systems Research Initiative (HSRI) (MR/S012877/1). The funders played no role in the study design, results interpretation or the decision to submit for publication.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Global action plan for the prevention and control of NCDs 2013–2020. Geneva; 2013. Available: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241506236
  • 2.Devi S. Palestinians continue to face barriers to health. The Lancet. 2023;401: 1640. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01001-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jonassen M, Shaheen A, Duraidi M, Qalalwa K, Jeune B, Brønnum-Hansen H. Socioeconomic status and chronic disease in Palestinians living in and outside refugee camps in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip: an observational study. The Lancet. 2018;391: S20. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30345-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Health in the Gaza Strip. Geneva: United Nations; 2018. Available: https://www.unrwa.org/activity/health-gaza-strip [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ager A, Alameddine M, Witter S, Fouad FM, Diaconu K, Jamal Z, et al. In support of UNRWA appeal for health and dignity of Palestinian refugees. The Lancet. 2018;391: 1260–1261. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30568-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.MA’AN Development Center. Food Security in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—occupied Palestinian territory. Ramallah: MA’AN Development Center; 2015. Available: https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/food-security-occupied-palestinian-territories [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lin TK, Kafri R, Hammoudeh W, Mitwalli S, Jamaluddine Z, Ghattas H, et al. Pathways to food insecurity in the context of conflict: the case of the occupied Palestinian territory. Confl Health. 2022;16: 38. doi: 10.1186/s13031-022-00470-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bouquet B, Barone-Adesi F, Lafi M, Quanstrom K, Riccardi F, Doctor H, et al. Comparative survival of cancer patients requiring Israeli permits to exit the Gaza Strip for health care: A retrospective cohort study from 2008 to 2017. PLOS ONE. 2021;16: e0251058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Basu S, Yudkin JS, Berkowitz SA, Jawad M, Millett C. Reducing chronic disease through changes in food aid: A microsimulation of nutrition and cardiometabolic disease among Palestinian refugees in the Middle East. PLoS Med. 2018;15: e1002700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Husseini A, Abu-Rmeileh NME, Mikki N, Ramahi TM, Ghosh HA, Barghuthi N, et al. Cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, and cancer in the occupied Palestinian territory. Lancet Lond Engl. 2009;373: 1041–1049. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60109-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Abu Hamad BA, Jamaluddine Z, Safadi G, Ragi M-E, Ahmad RES, Vamos EP, et al. The hypertension cascade of care in the midst of conflict: the case of the Gaza Strip. J Hum Hypertens. 2022; 1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41371-022-00783-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Basu S, Flood D, Geldsetzer P, Theilmann M, Marcus ME, Ebert C, et al. Estimated effect of increased diagnosis, treatment, and control of diabetes and its associated cardiovascular risk factors among low-income and middle-income countries: a microsimulation model. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9: e1539–e1552. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00340-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.State of Palestine. Preliminary Results of the Population, Housing and Establishments Census 2017. Ramallah: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Basu S, King AC. Disability and chronic disease among older adults in India: detecting vulnerable populations through the WHO SAGE Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;178: 1620–1628. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Basu S, Millett C. Social epidemiology of hypertension in middle-income countries determinants of prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and control in the WHO SAGE study. Hypertension. 2013;62: 18–26. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.113.01374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.World Health Organization. GATS Questionnaire. Geneva: WHO; 2020. Available: https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/surveillance/systems-tools/global-adult-tobacco-survey/questionnaire [Google Scholar]
  • 17.World Health Organization. Tackling NCDs: “best buys” and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization; 2017. Report No.: WHO/NMH/NVI/17.9. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/259232
  • 18.Nasa P, Jain R, Juneja D. Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness. World J Methodol. 2021;11: 116–129. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.World Health Organization. Choosing interventions that are cost effective (WHO-CHOICE). Geneva: WHO; 2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMJ. 2022;376: e067975. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Microsimulation Basu S. Systems Science and Popualtion Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. GBD Compare. Seattle: University of Washington; 2023. Available: http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hajifathalian K, Ueda P, Lu Y, Woodward M, Ahmadvand A, Aguilar-Salinas CA, et al. A novel risk score to predict cardiovascular disease risk in national populations (Globorisk): a pooled analysis of prospective cohorts and health examination surveys. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3: 339–355. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00081-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Janghorbani M, Adineh H, Amini M. Finnish Diabetes Risk Score to predict type 2 diabetes in the Isfahan diabetes prevention study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013;102: 202–209. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2013.10.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lindström J, Tuomilehto J. The diabetes risk score: a practical tool to predict type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes Care. 2003;26: 725–731. doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.3.725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Asamoah-Boaheng M, Acheampong L, Tenkorang EY, Farrell J, Oyet A, Midodzi WK. Association between early history of asthma and COPD diagnosis in later life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47: 1865–1876. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Forey BA, Thornton AJ, Lee PN. Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence relating smoking to COPD, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. BMC Pulm Med. 2011;11: 36. doi: 10.1186/1471-2466-11-36 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hjellvik V, Tverdal A, Furu K. Body mass index as predictor for asthma: a cohort study of 118,723 males and females. Eur Respir J. 2010;35: 1235–1242. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00192408 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wada H, Ikeda A, Maruyama K, Yamagishi K, Barnes PJ, Tanigawa T, et al. Low BMI and weight loss aggravate COPD mortality in men, findings from a large prospective cohort: the JACC study. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 1531. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79860-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81: 1879–1886. doi: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Costantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Benichou J, et al. Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91: 1541–1548. doi: 10.1093/jnci/91.18.1541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Al Otaibi HH. Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Using the Gail Model and It’s Predictors in Saudi Women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev APJCP. 2017;18: 2971–2975. doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.11.2971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wells BJ, Kattan MW, Cooper GS, Jackson L, Koroukian S. ColoRectal Cancer Predicted Risk Online (CRC-PRO) Calculator Using Data from the Multi-Ethnic Cohort Study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27: 42–55. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.01.130040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Buuren SV, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45. doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLOS Med. 2021;18: e1003583. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.World Bank Open Data. Washington D.C.: World Bank; 2023. Available: https://data.worldbank.org [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (GBD 2019) Disability Weights. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME); 2020. doi: 10.6069/1W19-VX76 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Medical Access for Palestinians. Access to healthcare: Health under occupation. Tel Aviv: Physicians for Human Rights; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Basu S, Andrews J. Complexity in mathematical models of public health policies: a guide for consumers of models. PLoS Med. 2013;10: e1001540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Basu S, Shankar V, Yudkin JS. Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target versus benefit-based tailored treatment of type 2 diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4: 922–932. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30270-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.NCD National capacity: Policies, strategies and action plans. [cited 17 Jul 2023]. Available: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/indicator-groups/indicator-group-details/GHO/policies-strategies-and-action-plans
  • 42.World Health Organization. Policies, strategies and action plans; 2021. Available: https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.A907?lang=en [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lowen M. More than 25,000 now killed in Gaza since Israel offensive began, Hamas-run health ministry says. 21 Jan 2024. Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68050172. Accessed 26 Feb 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jamaluddine Z, Chen Z, Abukmail H, Aly S, Elnakib S, Barnsley G, et al. Crisis in Gaza: Scenario-Based Health Impact Projections. London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; 2024. Available: https://gaza-projections.org/ [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Al-Jadba G, Zeidan W, Spiegel PB, Shaer T, Najjar S, Seita A. UNRWA at the frontlines: managing health care in Gaza during catastrophe. The Lancet. 2024;403: 723–726. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00230-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003168.r001

Decision Letter 0

Saifur R Chowdhury

26 Feb 2024

PGPH-D-23-02094

Reducing non-communicable diseases among Palestinian populations in Gaza: a participatory comparative and cost-effectiveness modeling assessment

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Sanjay Basu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’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.

Uncertainty analyses:

Inconsistency on what is reported in the methods section and result: confidence interval vs. credible interval. "Uncertainty analyses are reflected in the 95% confidence intervals around the mean results. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 27 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Saifur R. Chowdhury, MPH, PhD (c)

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

2. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:  LINK

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirements 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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: Yes

**********

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

PLOS Global Public Health 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: Yes

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: I appreciate the opportunity to critically review the manuscript titled "Reducing non-communicable diseases among Palestinian populations in Gaza: a participatory comparative and cost-effectiveness modeling assessment." It is an interesting and highly relevant article that analyzes the health situation of a population with very specific conditions that could have a negative impact on their well-being. While it is true that the study has limitations, appropriately addressed by the authors, I believe the obtained results are highly relevant for public health. I present to the authors a series of minor comments for their consideration.

Comment 1: On page 13, it is stated that more than half of the participants (54%) are women, and almost 7 out of 10 participants identified as refugees. Are these proportions representative of the source population? Please briefly discuss this.

Comment 2: In Table 2 (page 15), I found it concerning that there are no interventions aimed at improving the psychosocial and mental health of this population. I understand that current priorities (January 2024) may differ, but it is an aspect worth briefly discussing.

Comment 3: The political and health situation of the studied population recently changed for reasons beyond the control of the researchers. It would be interesting to briefly discuss the potential impact of these recent events on the burden of the diseases analyzed in this research

Reviewer #2: The author concluded that high levels of NCD risk factors among Palestinians in Gaza have

estimated that several interventions would be expected to reduce the loss of DALYs within

common cost-effectiveness thresholds. So, the author conducted a timely analysis.

Reviewer #3: Given the events that have been happening in Gaza for sometime, it is a perfect timing to have an article of this kind. This can be used as a reference for implementing interventions not only in Gaza but also in context that have been/ are being ravaged by political instabilities. For that, I would like to congratulate the authors.

This article is presented using a simple and clear language, and there is a good coherence in the flow of information. This ensures easy understanding for many readers irrespective of their professional backgrounds.

The method section is detailed and clear. The results and the discussion are well aligned to the objectives and methods used.

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: PUGAZHENTHAN THANGARAJU

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 Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003168.r003

Decision Letter 1

Saifur R Chowdhury

8 Apr 2024

Reducing non-communicable diseases among Palestinian populations in Gaza: a participatory comparative and cost-effectiveness modeling assessment

PGPH-D-23-02094R1

Dear Dr. Basu,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Reducing non-communicable diseases among Palestinian populations in Gaza: a participatory comparative and cost-effectiveness modeling assessment' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Saifur R. Chowdhury, MPH, PhD (c)

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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: Yes

**********

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

PLOS Global Public Health 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: 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 #1: I am grateful for the opportunity to critically review (Round 1) the manuscript PGPH-D-23-02094R1. The analyzed document is clear and the stated objective is achieved. The comments previously issued by me were duly addressed by the research group and, as I said before, it is a highly relevant research that will be of great interest to readers of PLOS Global Public Health.

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Efrén Murillo-Zamora

**********

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. Inclusivity in global research.

    (DOCX)

    pgph.0003168.s001.docx (64.8KB, docx)
    S1 Text

    (DOCX)

    pgph.0003168.s002.docx (45.7KB, docx)
    S1 Table. CHEERS checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pgph.0003168.s003.docx (17.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pgph.0003168.s004.docx (15.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data associated with this paper are available without restriction at https://github.com/sanjaybasu/ncdgaza.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES