Cuschieri et al. Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:43 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00665-y

R E S E A R C H

Mapping the burden of diabetes in five small countries in Europe and setting the agenda for health policy and strategic actionSarah Cuschieri1, Elena Pallari2* , Natasa Terzic3, Ala’a Alkerwi4 and Árún Kristín Sigurðardóttir5,6

Abstract Background: Diabetes is a global epidemic affecting every country. Small countries, however, face distinctive chal-lenges related to their health system governance and their ability to implement effective health systems’ reforms. The aim of this research was to perform a comparative assessment of existing diabetes management practices at the population level and explore governmental-related policy for Cyprus, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta and Montenegro. This is the first time that such an evidence-based review study has been performed in the field of diabetes. The overall purpose was to set the agenda for health policy and inform strategic actions for small countries that can benefit from dealing with the diabetes epidemic at a country level.

Methods: We collected data and synthesized the evidence on dealing with diabetes for each of the five small Euro-pean countries according to the (1) epidemiology of diabetes and other related metabolic abnormalities, (2) burden of diabetes status and (3) diabetes registers and national plans. We collected data by contacting Ministry representa-tives and other bodies in each state, and by searching through publicly available information from the respective Ministry of Health website on strategies and policies.

Results: Diabetes rates were highest in Cyprus and Malta. National diabetes registers are present in Cyprus and Mon-tenegro, while national diabetes plans and diabetes-specific strategies have been established in Cyprus, Malta and Montenegro. These three countries also offer a free holistic healthcare service to their diabetes population.

Conclusions: Multistakeholder, national diabetes plans and public health strategies are important means to provide direction on diabetes management and health service provision at the population level. However, political support is not always present, as seen for Iceland. The absence of evidence-based strategies, lack of funding for conducting regular health examination surveys, omission of monitoring practices and capacity scarcity are among the greatest challenges faced by small countries to effectively measure health outcomes. Nevertheless, we identified means of how these can be overcome. For example, the creation of public interdisciplinary repositories enables easily accessi-ble data that can be used for health policy and strategic planning. Health policy-makers, funders and practitioners can consider the use of regular health examination surveys and other tools to effectively manage diabetes at the popula-tion level.

Keywords: Type 2 diabetes, Noncommunicable diseases, Healthcare systems, Health policy, Healthcare delivery, Global burden of diseases, Small countries

© The Author(s) 2021. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Open Access

*Correspondence: [email protected] MRC Clinical Trials and Methodology Unit, University College London, London, UKFull list of author information is available at the end of the article

Page 2 of 10Cuschieri et al. Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:43

Key messages

• Most small member states have national diabetes plans, national registers and strategies.

• Diabetes plans exist in Cyprus, Malta and Monte-negro, countries that have relatively higher diabetes prevalence rates and burden of disease compared to the much lower diabetes burdens in Luxembourg and Iceland.

• Regular health examination surveys are currently missing and, as part of monitoring and evaluation, this is something that should be considered.

IntroductionNoncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are global epidemics that contribute to a substantial burden related to morbid-ity, disability and premature death. Diabetes falls within the top five predominating NCDs across the world, including  Europe [1]. In 2019, the International Diabe-tes Federation (IDF) reported an estimated 463 million adults (aged 20–79 years) suffering from diabetes world-wide, with 59 million residing in Europe [2]. By 2045, a 15% rise in the diabetes population is expected to occur within Europe [2].

With the global spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic in 2020, several mitigation legis-lations have been implemented by almost all countries across the globe to safeguard the health and safety of their populations. A number of these legislations have an effect on the healthcare systems and previously estab-lished services, including diabetes screening, prevention and management [3]. Although it is too early to assess the exact impact of this pandemic on the diabetes situa-tion across Europe, it can be predicted that the relation-ship between diabetes and the healthcare services can only be negative in the near future, especially in light of the observed relationship between diabetes and Covid-19 [3].

Small countries are known to face distinct challenges related to their health system governance and their health service delivery due to lack of capacity, limited resources, small market size and their constrained ability to imple-ment effective health system reforms [4]. However, this is not always the case. Indeed, recently in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, the small country of Malta proved to be a prototype for small and large European countries alike in the response to the first wave of the pandemic through health system preparedness and timely measures [5].

Recently, a common path was agreed among the 11 Member States in the Small Countries Initiative of the

WHO European Region [6] to foster a collaborative framework, to promote health and reduce health inequi-ties. These goals were based on the alignment of priori-ties on health policies within the European health policy Health 2020 framework, the development of capacity-building infrastructure to promote health and reduce health inequities, the set-up of supportive and engag-ing environments for the implementation of the goals and the development of a platform to share learning and experiences.

Considering the extend of the global diabetes epi-demic, it was considered paramount to also explore this epidemic from a small-country perspective, while investigating how the associated population-level stra-tegic planning can be improved. The World Bank and the Commonwealth define small countries or states as those with populations under 1.5 million. This defini-tion together with data on the countries participating in the COST Action CA18218–European Burden of Disease Network (burden-eu) [7] allowed us to include Cyprus, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta and Montenegro in this study. The objective of the study was to perform a comparative assessment of the existing diabetes situa-tion at the population level while assessing the particu-lar country’s governmental-related policy among these five small countries in Europe. The overall aim was to set up an agenda for health policy and strategic action for small countries in dealing with the diabetes epidemic at a country level. More broadly, the goal is to contribute to the overall continuous battle against the diabetes crisis by identifying potential solutions for small countries.

MethodsMethodology rationaleThe authors are members of the CA18218–European Burden of Disease Network (burden-eu) CA18218 that focusses on mapping the burden of disease at the Euro-pean level. Our study was based on a simple model of analysing the existing state of diabetes by synthesizing the evidence to make relevant suggestions on disease management and health policy for these countries. The methodology is split into three parts.

The first part is concerned with the context of  analys-ing the five small European countries of Cyprus, Ice-land, Luxembourg, Malta and Montenegro. The rationale behind this selection is threefold. Firstly, there is a lack of studies conducted at a national level in these countries and, hence, this provides an appropriate opportunity to study these. Secondly, when compared to other European countries, these small countries have a high prevalence of diabetes and, as such, it was considered appropriate to focus on these countries to shed light on the problem at hand and how it can be tackled. Thirdly, when comparing

Page 3 of 10Cuschieri et al. Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:43

small states, lessons can be learnt not only to help small countries but also to inform actions and decisions in geographically larger countries, with a more decentral-ized decision-making system  in place, or at a regional level, having the same population size as that of an entire small-country state.

The second part of this work involves the documenta-tion of the health-policy status for each of the five small European countries according to the (1) epidemiology of diabetes and other related metabolic abnormalities, (2) burden of diabetes status and (3) diabetes register and national plans. Our proposed study aims to contribute to the aforementioned effort within Health 2020 by iden-tifying gaps, differences and similarities between these countries towards evidence-based health-policy planning and strategic action.

The third part of the study is focussed on the synthesis of the findings of an evidence-based proposal on diabetes management in the following three dimensions: (1) mon-itoring and evaluation, which covers health examination surveys and their implementation in the five countries; (2) prevention, to draw on existing practices for public health diagnostic and screening practices; and (3) health system performance, to contextualize the impact of care delivery on the disease burden for each population.

A summary of the methodology protocol can be seen in Fig. 1.

Data sourcesWe collected data by contacting Ministry representa-tives and other governmental bodies in each state, and searched for publicly available information from web-sites on strategies and policies as available at the respec-tive Ministry of Health, some health sector divisions and appropriate bodies, such as statistical organiza-tions. We identified published articles originating from national surveys and datasets conducted in each of the five countries: Cyprus, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta and Montenegro. When data were not available online, we contacted  the corresponding person who would in turn send us the available nonconfidential data. We searched for documents on national strategies, action plans and/or policies on NCDs and diabetes at a country level.

Data analysisThe burden of diabetes at a population level was evalu-ated in terms of the “disability-adjusted life years” (DALYs) metrics as reported by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in their Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study [8]. The same resource was used to evaluate each country’s profile characteristics [8]. Com-parisons between the DALYs, years lived with disability (YLDs) and years of life lost (YLLs) data were performed

for the five small countries, using the GBD Compare tool [9]. DALYs is an overall measure of the disease burden that takes into account the YLDs and the YLLs due to a disease, which in this case is diabetes. The importance of DALYs is that it provides a consistent, geographic and time-bound metric of population health on both mor-bidity (YLDs) and mortality (YLLs) measures in units of years. The use of DALYs can assist in relative compari-sons between countries for a specific condition to iden-tify gaps in performance, research, health delivery or policy to prevent illness, disability or premature death. It can also be used to guide health system planning and public health interventions within a country for different

Fig. 1 The research methodology

Page 4 of 10Cuschieri et al. Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:43

diseases or by tracking changes for a specific disease over time. Epidemiological data were obtained from the lit-erature in each of the five states for both incidence and prevalence per 100,000 people.

The scientific literature was reviewed by the authors and common frameworks were identified. The data were categorized according to diabetes: prevalence data, diabetes register, governmental strategy and pol-icy and diabetes health care. Subsequently, the pub-lished literature, strategies, policies and burden of disease data were reviewed, and an agenda for policy and strategy action based on the small countries expe-rience was formulated.

ResultsTable 1 shows the population characteristics of the five small countries in Europe that were included in the study according to the GBD study for 2017. Although all five countries have comparable life expectancy, intercountry variations are still observed. Cyprus

ranked the highest in terms of diabetes mortality at the population level, followed by Montenegro and Malta.

Epidemiology of diabetes and other related metabolic abnormalitiesDiabetes prevalence rates varied across the five small countries, with the highest rates being reported in Malta and Cyprus followed by Montenegro (Table  2) [10–13]. However, it is worth noting that the data obtained from surveys were conducted in different time frames as well as following different study protocols. For example, Mon-tenegro’s diabetes estimate was based on a combina-tion of data obtained from a national register under the patronage of the Institute of Public Health and the pri-mary healthcare information system. A similar picture is observed for the prevalence of obesity, where the high-est obesity rates among the five small countries were reported by Malta (Table  2) [12, 14–17]. Yet, data on impaired glucose regulation (impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose) and the metabolic syndrome

Table 1 Distribution of the population characteristics among the five small countries in Europe, 2017 [6]

GDP Gross domestic product

Population characteristics Cyprus Iceland Luxembourg Malta Montenegro

Population 875.9 K 337.5 K 590.5 K 434.5 K 626.3 K

GDP per capital (in $US) 31,531 47,062 97,887 36,920 15,716

Life expectancy at birth (in years) 81.85 82.85 81.65 80.95 76.5

Diabetes death ranking at a population level 5th > 10th > 10th 8th 6th

Table 2 Comparisons between prevalence of the different metabolic abnormalities across the five small countries in Europe

BMI Body mass index

Prevalence Cyprus Iceland Luxembourg Malta Montenegro

Type 2 diabetes 10.4% (2005) 6.72% (2005–2011) 9.8% (2016–2018) 10.4% (2014–2016) 10.2% (2014)

Obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) 25.5% (2008) 26.6% (2017) 19.2% (2016–2018) 34.1% (2014–2016) 25% (2016)

Impaired glucose tolerance – – 25.6% (2013–2015) – –

Impaired fasting glucose – – – 24.3% (2014–2016) –

Metabolic syndrome – – 28.0% (2008–2009) 26.3% (2014–2016) –

Fig. 2 Comparative summary of the diabetes epidemiology and official diabetes registers and plans across the five small countries in Europe

Page 5 of 10Cuschieri et al. Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:43

was available only for Luxembourg and Malta (Table  2) [18–23].

Diabetes register and national plansOfficial national diabetes registers are only present in Cyprus and Montenegro. Malta’s national diabetes reg-ister is still in the pipeline. However, the Endocrinol-ogy Department of Malta’s state hospital has an online database that physicians can voluntarily input diabetes patients’ data. This database can act as the foundation for the construction of a national diabetes register [24]. National diabetes plans have only been established in Cyprus, Malta and Montenegro [25, 26]. A compara-tive summary of the official diabetes registers and plans across the five small countries can be observed in Fig. 2.

CyprusIn Cyprus, diabetes is high on the health policy agenda due to its impact on the economy and productivity [25]. A national diabetes strategy (2016–2024) is in place and it is based on five pillars: (1) prevention, (2) early detec-tion and care, (3) rehabilitation, (4) diabetes registry and (5) research. An interdisciplinary body, the National Dia-betes Committee, has been appointed by the Ministerial Board in order to execute the policy of this diabetes stra-tegic plan. There are 12 institutions carrying out research on diabetes on the island; the University of Nicosia, Nico-sia General Hospital and the University of Cyprus are among the top three. Although the island has are no clin-ical practice guidelines, the specialists follow European guidance or that of the UK. Cyprus has a high diabetes prevalence, but the amount of research done in the field is not appropriate to the needs of the population [27].

In Cyprus, individuals suffering from diabetes are enti-tled to a holistic healthcare service that includes free medication and consultations.

IcelandIn Iceland, the position of diabetes within the politi-cal agenda is a delicate one. Existing national policies target diabetes-related diseases and risk factors, includ-ing obesity, overweight, physical inactivity, smoking and unhealthy eating, but not prevention of diabetes. In fact, there is no national plan for diabetes [25]. However, individuals diagnosed with diabetes are eligible for free medication with a minimal fee for check-up visits to dia-betologists, diabetes nurses, ophthalmologists and podia-trists. The diabetes care in Iceland follows the American Diabetes Association guidelines [28]. An interdiscipli-nary working group appointed by the Minister of Health has recently suggested a national diabetes register for Ice-land [29].

LuxembourgIn Luxembourg there is no diabetes-specific national plan but rather a general national prevention policy that targets the different chronic NCD risk factors, including diabetes, obesity and overweight, dietary habits, smok-ing, physical inactivity and the harmful use of alcohol [25, 30]. The “Eat Healthy and Move More 2018–2025 Action Plan” is an interministerial prevention strategy developed by the Education, Family, Sports and Health Ministries, with the aim of promoting a healthy diet and physical activity. Diabetic patients are eligible for free medica-tion. However, there are no systematic yearly check-ups organized with endocrinologists or other allied health professionals. The patients need to organize follow-up consultations on their own initiative. Those opting to have check-up consultations will get a percentage reim-bursement by the government for the incurred fee. In addition, a national plan for 2019–2023 to fight cardi-oneurovascular diseases is being implemented, with a specific focus on diabetes risk.

MaltaIn Malta, a national diabetes plan was set up entitled “Diabetes: A National Public Health Priority: 2015–2020” [31]. This plan complemented the already existing “Dia-betes Shared Care Programme” [32]. This programme follows a multidisciplinary team effort to provide a free holistic care plan to the diabetes population and includes: regular follow-ups with a diabetes nurse, diabetologist, general practitioner with a special interest in diabetes, dietician, ophthalmologist, ophthalmic nurse and podia-trist. Furthermore, all individuals diagnosed with diabe-tes are entitled to free medication as well as to a limited amount of blood glucose monitoring strips every month. Additionally, there are a number of preventive strategies and action plans that target the different risk factors for diabetes including the “Healthy Weight for Life Strategy”, the “Noncommunicable Disease Control Strategy for Malta” and the “Food and Nutrition Policy and Action Plan for Malta”.

MontenegroIn Montenegro, a governmental “Strategy on Health-care of People who Live with Diabetes 2016–2020” with Action Plan 2017–2020 is under completion [26]. The main objectives of this strategy are to improve the health of these people through effective measures, including early detection, control, treatment and prevention of associated complications. A multisectoral approach is in place to safeguard the adherence and maintenance of this strategy. A national strategy for the prevention and control of NCDs (2008–2020) is also set in place, includ-ing the “Master Plan for Health System Development

Page 6 of 10Cuschieri et al. Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:43

(2015–2020)” focussing, among other things, on pri-orities for diabetes. Montenegro has other strategies, including the “National Strategy for Sustainable Devel-opment—NSSD 2016–2030” and the “Strategy for Healthcare Quality Improvement and Patient Safety 2019–2023”, with both strategies targeting NCDs. Indi-viduals with diabetes are eligible for free medication and healthcare services under the Compulsory Health Insur-ance Act.

Burden of diabetesOn assessing the DALYs metric for the diabetes situation across the five small countries in Europe, we draw on dif-ferences and similarities, as shown in Table  3. Montene-gro had the highest diabetes DALYs and YLDs for 2017 compared to the other small countries; however, Cyprus had the highest YLLs for the same year.

DiscussionDiabetes is a growing epidemic that gives rise to several different challenges and imposes a substantial burden on healthcare services. This has led to a number of col-laborative reports and joint actions between countries and states that are members of the EU with the aim of addressing this epidemic [33]. Across Europe, many countries have introduced national diabetes plans or NCD strategies as part of a national effort to contain this epidemic. We identified a wealth of information related to the strategies and action plans that are related to (1) monitoring and evaluation aspects, (2) prevention and (3) health system performance.

A multistakeholder approach is key when develop-ing such strategies, in addition to a sustainable political leadership [1, 34]. However, political support for a spe-cific framework allocated only to diabetes is not always in place, as seen Iceland, which has the highest gross domestic product (GDP) of the five small states studied.

On the other hand, national diabetes plans are already established in Cyprus, Malta and Montenegro. These lat-ter three small countries have relatively higher diabetes prevalence rates and burden of disease compared to a much lower diabetes burden in Luxembourg and Iceland. Nevertheless, all five small countries have an established preventive strategy targeting the various diabetes risk factors and NCDs.

Monitoring and evaluationThe key to successful NCD strategies is the continuous monitoring and evaluation of the situation at a popula-tion level [1]. This is maintained by undertaking regular health surveys, ideally through health examination sur-veys. Without regular updated evidence-based data, there will be sparse evidence on whether the strate-gies are working efficiently and whether there is a need for more rigorous interventions. Conducting regular health examination surveys is one of the many challenges faced by most small countries due to the lack of human resources and research budget allocation. In fact, over the past 15 years, a national representative health exami-nation survey covering diabetes was conducted only once in Cyprus and Malta, never in Iceland and Montenegro, while in Luxembourg health examination surveys were performed on a regular basis (2007–2008, 2013–2015 and 2016–2017) [13, 35–37]. The European Health Inter-view Survey consists of a number of health modules, including a self-reported medical history of diabetes, and is conducted every 5 years among the EU countries, including Iceland [38]. This type of survey depends on self-reporting; hence, it is prone to incorrect recall infor-mation biases. However, it still constitutes a good source of information on health indicators at the population level, with reasonable resources.

Prevention: management plans and executionAn integrated approach is required when targeting chronic diseases, including diabetes [39]. Prevention is one of the key priorities in terms of reducing the burden of diabetes within the population [1]. In fact, prevention is one of the key pillars of the national diabetes plans set up by Cyprus, Malta and Montenegro [31]. Regard-less of this focus on prevention, it is of utmost impor-tance that such strategies are adhered to and maintained. Establishing multidisciplinary diabetes care protocols in each country may be the way forward to ensure adher-ence to such strategies. Nonetheless, it is paramount that adequate human resources, infrastructure and financial budget allocation are present to enhance the healthcare services. In Montenegro, a multisectoral approach has been established to ensure that the strategies are adhered to. However, the implementation of these strategies still

Table 3 Distribution of the burden of disease metrics for diabetes across the five small countries in Europe for 2017 [7]

DALYs Disability-adjusted life years, GBD GlobalBburden of Disease, YLDs years lived with disability, YLLs years of life lost

GBD burden of disease study (2017)

Cyprus Iceland Luxembourg Malta Montenegro

DALYs per 100,000

1098 526.98 786.65 1172.67 1254.47

YLDs per 100,000

600.66 429.75 639.76 776.97 847.71

YLLs per 100,000

497.34 97.23 146.89 395.7 406.76

Page 7 of 10Cuschieri et al. Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:43

presents a major challenge. The small island of Malta together with Cyprus have the highest DALYs burden of the other small countries; they both have one of the high-est prevalence rates for both diabetes and obesity [10, 14]. Although Malta has had a National Diabetes Plan in place since 2014, an official diabetes screening frame-work is not yet present even if various recommendations have been suggested [10, 31, 40]. For Cyprus, the burden of disease data show that YLDs are very similar, about 1.5-fold higher, to data on mortality from diabetes, which possible illustrates that a better diagnosis and regular blood glucose management of the disease can prevent premature deaths. For example, in Malta, it is at the dis-cretion of the family physician or of the individual to seek out regular blood glucose testing and screening for dia-betes. A similar picture is seen for Luxembourg.

Health system performanceA slight discrepancy is observed between the diabetes holistic management approach offered by the health-care systems of these five small countries. The diabetes populations residing in Cyprus, Malta and Montenegro benefit from a free medication scheme as well as system-atic check-up routines. This holistic approach is justified considering the high prevalence of diabetes among each country’s adult population. Regular follow-up enables early detection of complications and a reduction in the healthcare burden. Similarly, the diabetes population in Iceland has the same opportunities, but individuals incur a minimal fee for the check-up consultations. As Iceland has the highest GDP per capita of the five small coun-tries studied here, this health regulation may be justi-fied, especially as Iceland has not only the lowest overall disease burden but also the lowest burden from prema-ture deaths attributed to diabetes, compared to the other small states studied. Of all the small countries in this study, Iceland enjoys the lowest overall diabetes’ burden even though it was noted that it lacks regular evidence-based data to allow adequate monitoring of population health. This is in contrast to Luxembourg, which benefits from access to such data but still has a higher diabetes burden among its population. Therefore, the plan for a more organized diabetes management strategy in combi-nation with better diagnostic and surveillance databases can complement the monitoring and control within the provided framework of service delivery to those small countries who suffer the most from diabetes.

Implications and recommendationsSmall states, irrelevant of their GDP (except for Luxem-bourg) and their health status, appear to have low pri-orities for regular and ongoing surveys and population research. The potential reasons for this are multifactorial

and include: the lack of human resources, minimal allo-cation of grants and funding for research, different gov-ernance priorities, among others. These  issues  hinder the mapping of the burden of diabetes and the associated evidence-based policy and strategic action plans. Con-ducting regular health examination surveys with a low budget and minimal human resources can be achieved within small countries. Malta’s Health Examination Sur-vey conducted by the University of Malta suggests that an epidemiological health examination survey target-ing diabetes can be successfully conducted with mini-mal resources [36]. A “toolkit for the development and implementation of epidemiological surveys in small populations” has been compiled by the University of Malta in collaboration with the World Health Organiza-tion for Health Systems and Policies in Small States [41] to illustrate how small countries can use their minimal resources to conduct epidemiological population-based research. A public interdisciplinary repository may also be created where researchers can share their research and data. It is not uncommon that scholars conduct valu-able studies as part of an academic endeavour, but the outcomes are not publicly shared with stakeholders. In small countries, such studies are more likely to be popu-lation-based and, if easily accessed, the data can be used effectively for health policy and strategic planning. How-ever, the mechanisms for the translation of this evidence into action are unclear. The collection of accurate health-related data from healthcare facilities can be more feasi-ble in small countries than in larger ones due to the small population size. On the other hand, small countries lack the capacity to conduct local burden of diseases stud-ies. Therefore, the estimated DALYs obtained from the GBD study is a useful metric that helps policy-makers to identify the impact of a disease, such as diabetes, on their country. Additionally, policy-makers can make use of such administrative data collection systems when imple-menting plans to assist with their decisions. It is, there-fore, important that such resource metrics are brought to the attention of policy-makers while setting agendas for health policies and strategic action plans.

Another key challenge that small countries face is the inability to monitor and evaluate community diabe-tes public awareness while building up the capacity to measure the health outcomes following interventions [33]. Provided that the right tools and data are estab-lished, small countries are in a better position to imple-ment interventions and monitor their outcomes due to their small population size. Awareness of diabetes and its associated risk factors is not an adequate stand-alone strategy; rather, it needs to be incorporated into multi-sectorial interventions that also consider the environ-ment, social status and cultural setting of the population

Page 8 of 10Cuschieri et al. Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:43

[42]. Therefore, it is of immense importance that policy-makers work with various stakeholders, including local researchers, to collectively map the country-specific bur-den of diabetes and set the agenda for population-specific action plans.

Study limitationsThe focus was on diabetes management among small countries as associated with health policy and strategic action. This article is based on research literature freely available in online databases as well as on Ministry of Health and other releavent websites and data provided from the appropriate bodies in each of the countries. Ongoing or unpublished studies have, therefore, not been included. As such, the value of this work is limited in these countries (n = 5) and on their characteristics of setting health policies and implementing management practices on diabetes. This limitation may prevent the translation of the relevance or value of the current find-ings on strategic planning and health policy on health promotion and disease prevention for diabetes to the remainder of the excluded countries (n = 6) from the European countries of the WHO Small Countries Initia-tive (n = 11). Additionally, further research on address-ing these differences could, therefore, bring more clarity on the importance of the context, with emphasis on fac-tors and performance indicators of small countries in the European region.

We acknowledge that the article is based on the five small countries in Europe and that the generalizability of the findings to other smaller European or other countries may not be appropriate. Further research is merited to examine the transfer of knowledge across different small countries. Although the article is based solely on these five small European countries, we cannot draw any con-clusions on differences in the country healthcare system and structure. A potentially useful model in future stud-ies might be the Pandemic Risk Exposure Measurement (PREM) to identify factors that are associated with demo-graphic characteristics, measures of a country’s activities and economic and social susceptibilities [43]. For exam-ple, we can identify such complex variables to map the impact of diabetes management against the response, policies and strategies that a country can apply during a pandemic situation, such as Covid-19.

Study strengthsTo our knowledge, this is the first study that has focussed on mapping the health policy and strategy on diabe-tes management in five small countries in Europe. The importance of this work is that it lays the foundation for a future comparative study between smaller and

medium-sized or larger European states, and for setting an agenda relevant to them. By collecting and analysing epidemiological, burden of disease and strategy plans we have provided a comprehensive analysis of the health pol-icy landscape related to diabetes. Our results point out the similarities and differences between these countries and subsequently set up an evidence-based agenda for a health-policy framework. Additionally, this study  brings together evidence from multiple national sources, high-lighting gaps in the process of health policy and strategic action. These can, in turn, be used by policy-makers in each of the countries to inform their existing processes and current practices on diabetes management.

ConclusionsThe diabetes epidemic affects every nation including small countries in Europe. We identified policy docu-ments, strategies and action plans as well as mapped the diabetes situation and the resources for Cyprus, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta and Montenegro. Despite their small geographical size, we observed distinct challenges faced by these small countries as related to their diabetes epi-demiology, burden of disease and diabetes registers and national plans. Iceland and Luxembourg have the lowest prevalence among the five member states, and the low-est burden from premature deaths, despite being the only two member states that have no official national register and no national plan for diabetes. While Malta, Montenegro and Cyprus provide a free holistic care plan to patients diagnosed with diabetes, they also have the highest disease burden from premature mortality. These findings may also (a) justify the need to perform health examination surveys for better monitoring and evalua-tion, (b) acknowledge gaps in the prevention aspects and set-up of appropriate health population priorities and (c) identify lack of coherent management approaches within the health system to support the population they serve. The key to mapping the burden of diabetes depends on up-to-date evidence-based data, appropriate infrastruc-ture and healthcare frameworks supported by the gov-ernance and multisectoral stakeholders. Such an agenda can enable the implementation of targeted health policies and strategic action plans to reduce the burden of diabe-tes at the population level.

AbbreviationsDALYs: Disability-adjusted life years; GBD: Global Burden of Disease; IDF: Inter-national Diabetes Federation; IHME: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation; NCDs: Noncommunicable diseases; WHO: World Health Organization; YLDs: Years lived with disability; YLLs: Years of life lost.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Dr. Olga Kalakouta, First Health Officer at the Ministry of Health and Dr. Myrto Azina Chronides, Senior Medical Officer at the

Page 9 of 10Cuschieri et al. Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:43

Ministry of Health and President of the National Diabetes Committee for the provision of data for Cyprus.

Authors’ contributionsSC designed the study protocol. SC and EP have shaped the manuscript. The other authors provided information and references to their specific countries’ data on diabetes. All authors have approved of the manuscript prior to submission.

FundingNo funding was required.

Availability of data and materialsAll data used are provided within the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participateNot applicable.

Concept for publicationNot applicable.

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author details1 Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Msida, Malta. 2 MRC Clinical Trials and Methodology Unit, Univer-sity College London, London, UK. 3 Center for Health System Development, Institute of Public Health of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro. 4 Service épidémiologie et statistique, Direction de la Santé, Luxembourg, Luxembourg. 5 School of Health Science, University of Akureyri, Sólborg, Iceland. 6 Akureyri Hospital, Akureyri, Iceland.

Received: 13 October 2020 Accepted: 23 November 2020

References 1. Beaglehole R, Bonita R, Horton R, Adams C, Alleyne G, Asaria P, et al.

Priority actions for the non-communicable disease crisis. Lancet (London, England). 2011;377:1438–47.

2. International Diabetes Federation. IDF diabetes atlas. 9th ed. Brussels, Belgium; 2019. http:// www. diabe tesat las. org.

3. Cuschieri S, Grech S. COVID-19 and diabetes: the why, the what and the how. J Diabetes Complicat [Internet]. 2020;107637. http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 32456 846.

4. Azzopardi-Muscat N, Funk T, Buttigieg SC, Grech KE, Brand H. Policy chal-lenges and reforms in small EU member state health systems: a narrative literature review. Eur J Public Health. 2016. p. 916–22. https:// pubmed. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ 27335 326/.

5. Cuschieri S. COVID-19 panic, solidarity and equity—the Malta exemplary experience. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10389- 020- 01308-w.

6. Iceland M, Cyprus M, Luxembourg M, Marino S. Implementing the Health 2020 vision in countries with small populations: The San Marino Mani-festo. https:// www. euro. who. int/__ data/ assets/ pdf_ file/ 0017/ 310409/ San- Marino- Manif esto- en. pdf.

7. Devleesschauwer B. European burden of disease network: strengthening the collaboration. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30:2–3.

8. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Global burden of disease (GBD) study. 2020. http:// www. healt hdata. org/.

9. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). GBD Compare | IHME Viz Hub. 2017. https:// vizhub. healt hdata. org/ gbd- compa re/.

10. Cuschieri S. The diabetes epidemic in Malta. S East Eur J Public Health. 2020;13:1–10.

11. Thorsson B, Eiriksdottir G, Sigurdsson S, Gudmundsson EF, Bots ML, Aspelund T, et al. Population distribution of traditional and the emerging cardiovascular risk factors carotid plaque and IMT: the REFINE-Reykjavik study with comparison with the Tromsø study. BMJ Open Br Med J. 2018;8:e019385.

12. Alkerwi A, Pastore J, Sauvageot N, Le Coroller G, Bocquet V, d’Incau M, et al. Challenges and benefits of integrating diverse sampling strate-gies in the observation of cardiovascular risk factors (ORISCAV-LUX 2) study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12874- 019- 0669-0.

13. Loizou T, Pouloukas S, Tountas C, Thanopoulou A, Karamanos V. An epide-miologic study on the prevalence of diabetes, glucose intolerance, and metabolic syndrome in the adult population of the Republic of Cyprus. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:1714–5.

14. Cuschieri S, Vassallo J, Calleja N, Camilleri R, Borg A, Bonnici G, et al. Preva-lence of obesity in Malta. Obes Sci Pract. 2016. p. 466–70. http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 28090 352.

15. Landlæknir. The Directorate of Health Iceland. 2014. https:// www. landl aeknir. is/ engli sh/.

16. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Nutrition, physical activity and obesity Cyprus demographic data prevalence of overweight and obesity (%) among Cypriot adults based on WHO 2008 estimates. 2013. http:// www. euro. who. int/ en/ nutri tion- count ry- profi les.

17. World Health Organization. Montenegro. 2016. https:// www. who. int/ nmh/ count ries/ mne_ en. pdf? ua=1.

18. Bocquet V, Ruiz-Castell M, de Beaufort C, Barré J, de Rekeneire N, Michel G, et al. Public health burden of pre-diabetes and diabetes in Luxem-bourg: finding from the 2013–2015 European Health Examination Survey. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e022206.

19. Cuschieri S, Grech S. Assessing impaired fasting blood glucose criteria for high-risk dysglycaemic populations: an experience from a European population state. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40200- 020- 00563-8.

20. Cuschieri S, Vassallo J, Calleja N, Pace N, Mamo J. The effect of age, gen-der, TG/HDL-C ratio and behavioral lifestyles on the metabolic syndrome in the high risk Mediterranean Island population of Malta. Diabetes Metab Syndr Clin Res Rev. 2017;11(Suppl):1.

21. Alkerwi A, Donneau A-F, Sauvageot N, Lair M-L, Scheen A, Albert A, et al. Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in Luxembourg according to the Joint Interim Statement definition estimated from the ORISCAV-LUX study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:4.

22. Martinovic M, Belojevic G, Evans GW, Lausevic D, Asanin B, Samardzic M, et al. Prevalence of and contributing factors for overweight and obesity among Montenegrin schoolchildren. Eur J Public Health. 2015;25:833–9.

23. Cojić MM, Cvejanov-Kezunović L, Stanković J, Kavarić N, Koraćević M, Damjanović L. Control of glycemia and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care in Montenegro. Facta Univ Ser Med Biol. 2018;0:016. http:// casop isi. junis. ni. ac. rs/ index. php/ FUMed Biol/ artic le/ view/ 3638.

24. Azzopardi J, Fava S. The Department of Health Diabetes Mellitus Health Information Technology Database in Malta. Malta Med Sch Gaz. 2019;3:40–5. https:// www. mmsjo urnals. org/ index. php/ MDHG/ artic le/ view/ 181.

25. Felton A-M, Hall M. Diabetes in Europe policy puzzle: the state we are in. Int Diabetes Nurs. 2015;12:3–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1179/ 20573 31615Z. 00000 00007.

26. Ministry of Health Montenegro. Strategies. 2020. http:// www. mzdra vlja. gov. me/ en/ libra ry/ strat egije? alpha bet= lat.

27. Pallari E, Lewison G, Pallari CT, Samoutis G, Begum M, Sullivan R. The contribution of Cyprus to non-communicable diseases and biomedi-cal research from 2002 to 2013: implications for evidence-based health policy. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2018;16:82. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12961- 018- 0355-4.

28. American Diabetes Association AD. Glycemic targets: standards of medi-cal care in diabetes-2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:S66-76.

29. Ministry for Health Iceland. Suggestions for responding to the growing incidence of diabetes. 2018. https:// www. stjor narra did. is/ efst-a- baugi/ frett ir/ stok- frett/ 2018/ 04/ 20/ Tillo gur- um- vidbr ogd- vid- vaxan di- nygen gi- sykur syki/.

30. Sante Luxembourg. GIMB ¦ Promotion de l’alimentation saine et de l’activité physique 2018–2025—Portail Santé//Grand-Duché de Lux-embourg. 2006. https:// sante. public. lu/ fr/ polit ique- sante/ plans- action/ gimb- 2018/ index. html.

31. Parliamentary Working Group on Diabetes. Diabetes: A National Public Health Priority. Proposal for a National Strategy for Diabetes 2015–2020. Malta; 2015.

Page 10 of 10Cuschieri et al. Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:43

• fast, convenient online submission

•

thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field

• rapid publication on acceptance

• support for research data, including large and complex data types

•

gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations

maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year •

At BMC, research is always in progress.

Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions

Ready to submit your researchReady to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from: ? Choose BMC and benefit from:

32. Ministry for Health Malta. Protocol for Shared Care Diabetes in Malta. https:// deput yprim emini ster. gov. mt/ en/ phc/ Pages/ Servi ces/ Diabe tes- Shared- Care- Progr amme/ Proto col. aspx.

33. Richardson E, Zaletel J, Nolte E. POLICY BRIEF National diabetes plans in Europe. What lessons are there for the prevention and control of chronic diseases in Europe? On behalf of Joint Action CHRODIS HEALTH SYSTEMS AND POLICY ANALYSIS. 2020. www. nijz. si.

34. Cuschieri S. Type 2 diabetes—an unresolved disease across centuries contributing to a public health emergency. Diabetes Metab Syndr Clin Res Rev. 2019;13:450–3.

35. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. European Health Examination Survey. 2019. http:// www. ehes. info/ natio nal/ natio nal_ hes_ status. htm.

36. Cuschieri S, Vassallo J, Calleja N, Pace N, Mamo J. Diabetes, pre-diabetes and their risk factors in Malta: a study profile of national cross-sectional prevalence study. Glob Health Epidemiol Genomics. 2016;1.

37. Alkerwi A, Sauvageot N, Donneau A-F, Lair M-L, Couffignal S, Beissel J, et al. First nationwide survey on cardiovascular risk factors in Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (ORISCAV-LUX). BMC Public Health. 2010;10:468. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1471- 2458- 10- 468.

38. EUROSTAT. European Health Interview Survey—Eurostat. 2020. https:// ec. europa. eu/ euros tat/ web/ micro data/ europ ean- health- inter view- survey.

39. European Diabetes Leadership Forum. The diabetes epidemic and its impact on Europe. Copenhagen; 2012. https:// www. oecd. org/ els/ health- syste ms/ 50080 632. pdf.

40. Cuschieri S, Vassallo J, Calleja N, Pace N, Abela J, Ali BA, et al. The diabesity health economic crisis-the size of the crisis in a European island state following a cross-sectional study. Arch Public Health. 2016;74:52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13690- 016- 0164-6.

41. Cuschieri S, Calleja N, Mamo J. Toolkit for the development and imple-mentation of epidemiological surveys in small populations report. WHO collborative centre, University of Malta Islands & Small states Institute, Msida, Malta. 2019.

42. Cuschieri S, Grech S. Closing the gap—is type 2 diabetes awareness enough to prevent the growing epidemic? Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2019;13:1739–44.

43. Grima S, Kizilkaya M, Rupeika-Apoga R, Romānova I, Dalli Gonzi R, Jako-vljevic M. A country pandemic risk exposure measurement model. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020;13:2067–77.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-lished maps and institutional affiliations.

BioMed Central publishes under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL). Underthe CCAL, authors retain copyright to the article but users are allowed to download, reprint,distribute and /or copy articles in BioMed Central journals, as long as the original work isproperly cited.