Use of Social Media Functionality for Improving Information Sharing, Problem-Solving, and Co-Production in a B2B Context

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). This study examines (i) the role of social media functionalities in building trust (ii) and trust’s role in achieving co-production of the value proposition. This research confirms the positive impact of social media functionality on developing trust. A cross-sectional survey is conducted based on the questionnaire method in this study. The sample was drawn from Tehranand Arak companies located in Science and Technology Parks and industrial zones. Structural equation modeling was performed to test the relationship among the research variables. Drawing upon a sample of 358 participants working in industrial firms and using partial least squares structural equation modeling, the functionality of social media as particular tools to build trust is elaborated. Also, our research results prove the critical impact of trust on the co-production of value proposition dimensions, i.e., knowledge and information sharing, problem-solving, and co-production. Furthermore, it is shown that technological uncertainty has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between trust and co-production. Conversely, competition intensity has a negative moderating influence on the relationship between trust and problem-solving. The results of this study is particularly useful for B2B firms and shows that by investing in social media activities, they can extend their communications with their client and stakeholders to develop trust effectively. Such investment reaps the benefit of co-production of the value proposition. Based on the results, this paper suggests managerial implications for policymakers, sales managers, IT managers, and social media directors who wish to build a strong relationship with their clients and motivate them to take part in their production process and help them improve both quality and services

Cost-Effectiveness of New Cardiac and Vascular Rehabilitation Strategies for Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

Objective: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) often hinders the cardiac rehabilitation program. The aim of this study was evaluating the relative cost-effectiveness of new rehabilitation strategies which include the diagnosis and treatment of PAD in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Data Sources: Best-available evidence was retrieved from literature and combined with primary data from 231 patients. Methods: We developed a Markov decision model to compare the following treatment strategies: 1. cardiac rehabilitation only; 2. ankle-brachial index (ABI) if cardiac rehabilitation fails followed by diagnostic work-up and revascularization for PAD if needed; 3. ABI prior to cardiac rehabilitation followed by diagnostic work-up and revascularization for PAD if needed. Quality-adjusted-life years (QALYs), life-time costs (US $), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), and gain in net health benefits (NHB) in QALY equivalents were calculated. A threshold willingness-to-pay of$75 000 was used. Results: ABI if cardiac rehabilitation fails was the most favorable strategy with an ICER of $44 251 per QALY gained and an incremental NHB compared to cardiac rehabilitation only of 0.03 QALYs (95$75 000/QALY. After sensitivity analysis, a combined cardiac and vascular rehabilitation program increased the success rate and would dominate the other two strategies with total lifetime costs of $30 246 a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 3.84 years, and an incremental NHB of 0.06 QALYs (95%CI:−0.24, 0.46) compared to current practice. The results were robust for other different input parameters. Conclusion: ABI measurement if cardiac rehabilitation fails followed by a diagnostic work-up and revascularization for PAD if needed are potentially cost-effective compared to cardiac rehabilitation only

Worldwide trends in diabetes prevalence and treatment from 1990 to 2022: a pooled analysis of 1108 population-representative studies with 141 million participants

Background Diabetes can be detected at the primary health-care level, and effective treatments lower the risk of complications. There are insufficient data on the coverage of treatment for diabetes and how it has changed. We estimated trends from 1990 to 2022 in diabetes prevalence and treatment for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1108 population-representative studies with 141 million participants aged 18 years and older with measurements of fasting glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and information on diabetes treatment. We defined diabetes as having a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 7·0 mmol/L or higher, having an HbA1c of 6·5% or higher, or taking medication for diabetes. We defined diabetes treatment as the proportion of people with diabetes who were taking medication for diabetes. We analysed the data in a Bayesian hierarchical meta-regression model to estimate diabetes prevalence and treatment. Findings In 2022, an estimated 828 million (95% credible interval [CrI] 757–908) adults (those aged 18 years and older) had diabetes, an increase of 630 million (554–713) from 1990. From 1990 to 2022, the age-standardised prevalence of diabetes increased in 131 countries for women and in 155 countries for men with a posterior probability of more than 0·80. The largest increases were in low-income and middle-income countries in southeast Asia (eg, Malaysia), south Asia (eg, Pakistan), the Middle East and north Africa (eg, Egypt), and Latin America and the Caribbean (eg, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Costa Rica). Age-standardised prevalence neither increased nor decreased with a posterior probability of more than 0·80 in some countries in western and central Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, east Asia and the Pacific, Canada, and some Pacific island nations where prevalence was already high in 1990; it decreased with a posterior probability of more than 0·80 in women in Japan, Spain, and France, and in men in Nauru. The lowest prevalence in the world in 2022 was in western Europe and east Africa for both sexes, and in Japan and Canada for women, and the highest prevalence in the world in 2022 was in countries in Polynesia and Micronesia, some countries in the Caribbean and the Middle East and north Africa, as well as Pakistan and Malaysia. In 2022, 445 million (95% CrI 401–496) adults aged 30 years or older with diabetes did not receive treatment (59% of adults aged 30 years or older with diabetes), 3·5 times the number in 1990. From 1990 to 2022, diabetes treatment coverage increased in 118 countries for women and 98 countries for men with a posterior probability of more than 0·80. The largest improvement in treatment coverage was in some countries from central and western Europe and Latin America (Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Costa Rica), Canada, South Korea, Russia, Seychelles, and Jordan. There was no increase in treatment coverage in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa; the Caribbean; Pacific island nations; and south, southeast, and central Asia. In 2022, age-standardised treatment coverage was lowest in countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, and treatment coverage was less than 10% in some African countries. Treatment coverage was 55% or higher in South Korea, many high-income western countries, and some countries in central and eastern Europe (eg, Poland, Czechia, and Russia), Latin America (eg, Costa Rica, Chile, and Mexico), and the Middle East and north Africa (eg, Jordan, Qatar, and Kuwait). Interpretation In most countries, especially in low-income and middle-income countries, diabetes treatment has not increased at all or has not increased sufficiently in comparison with the rise in prevalence. The burden of diabetes and untreated diabetes is increasingly borne by low-income and middle-income countries. The expansion of health insurance and primary health care should be accompanied with diabetes programmes that realign and resource health services to enhance the early detection and effective treatment of diabetes. Funding UK Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation (Research England), and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

Background Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30–79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. Findings The number of people aged 30–79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306–359) million women and 317 (292–344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584–668) million women and 652 (604–698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55–62) of women and 49% (46–52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43–51) of women and 38% (35–41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20–27) for women and 18% (16–21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. Interpretation Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings. Funding WHO

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

Background: Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories.Methods: We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30-79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age.Findings: The number of people aged 30-79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306-359) million women and 317 (292-344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584-668) million women and 652 (604-698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55-62) of women and 49% (46-52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43-51) of women and 38% (35-41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20-27) for women and 18% (16-21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran.Interpretation: Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings.Copyright (C) 2021 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier.</p

General and abdominal adiposity and hypertension in eight world regions: a pooled analysis of 837 population-based studies with 7•5 million participants

Background Adiposity can be measured using BMI (which is based on weight and height) as well as indices of abdominal adiposity. We examined the association between BMI and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) within and across populations of different world regions and quantified how well these two metrics discriminate between people with and without hypertension. Methods We used data from studies carried out from 1990 to 2023 on BMI, WHtR and hypertension in people aged 20–64 years in representative samples of the general population in eight world regions. We graphically compared the regional distributions of BMI and WHtR, and calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients between BMI and WHtR within each region. We used mixed-effects linear regression to estimate the extent to which WHtR varies across regions at the same BMI. We graphically examined the prevalence of hypertension and the distribution of people who have hypertension both in relation to BMI and WHtR, and we assessed how closely BMI and WHtR discriminate between participants with and without hypertension using C-statistic and net reclassification improvement (NRI). Findings The correlation between BMI and WHtR ranged from 0·76 to 0·89 within different regions. After adjusting for age and BMI, mean WHtR was highest in south Asia for both sexes, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean and the region of central Asia, Middle East and north Africa. Mean WHtR was lowest in central and eastern Europe for both sexes, in the high-income western region for women, and in Oceania for men. Conversely, to achieve an equivalent WHtR, the BMI of the population of south Asia would need to be, on average, 2·79 kg/m2 (95% CI 2·31–3·28) lower for women and 1·28 kg/m2 (1·02–1·54) lower for men than in the high-income western region. In every region, hypertension prevalence increased with both BMI and WHtR. Models with either of these two adiposity metrics had virtually identical C-statistics and NRIs for every region and sex, with C-statistics ranging from 0·72 to 0·81 and NRIs ranging from 0·34 to 0·57 in different region and sex combinations. When both BMI and WHtR were used, performance improved only slightly compared with using either adiposity measure alone. Interpretation BMI can distinguish young and middle-aged adults with higher versus lower amounts of abdominal adiposity with moderate-to-high accuracy, and both BMI and WHtR distinguish people with or without hypertension. However, at the same BMI level, people in south Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the region of central Asia, Middle East and north Africa, have higher WHtR than in the other regions. Funding UK Medical Research Council and UK Research and Innovation (Innovate UK)