ArticleMalaria journal2011
Pharmaceutical services for endemic situations in the Brazilian Amazon: organization of services and prescribing practices for Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum non-complicated malaria in high-risk municipalities.
Article in Malaria journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn spite of the fact that pharmaceutical services are an essential component of all malaria programmes, quality of these services has been little explored in the literature. This study presents the first results of the application of an evaluation model of pharmaceutical services in high-risk municipalities of the Amazon region, focusing on indicators regarding organization of services and prescribing according to national guidelines.
methodsA theoretical framework of pharmaceutical services for non-complicated malaria was built based on the Rapid Evaluation Method (WHO). The framework included organization of services and prescribing, among other activities. The study was carried out in 15 primary health facilities in six high-risk municipalities of the Brazilian Amazon. Malaria individuals ≥ 15 years old were approached and data was collected using specific instruments. Data was checked by independent reviewers and fed to a data bank through double-entry. Descriptive variables were analyzed.
resultsA copy of the official treatment guideline was found in 80% of the facilities; 67% presented an environment for receiving and prescribing patients. Re-supply of stocks followed a different timeline; no facilities adhered to forecasting methods for stock management. No shortages or expired anti-malarials were observed, but overstock was a common finding. On 86.7% of facilities, the average of good storage practices was 48%. Time between diagnosis and treatment was zero days. Of 601 patients interviewed, 453 were diagnosed for Plasmodium vivax; of these, 99.3% received indications for the first-line scheme. Different therapeutic schemes were given to Plasmodium falciparum patients. Twenty-eight (4.6%) out of 601 were prescribed regimens not listed in the national guideline. Only 5.7% individuals received a prescription or a written instruction of any kind.
conclusionsThe results show that while diagnostic procedure is well established and functioning in the Brazilian malaria programme, prescribing is still an activity that is actually not performed. The absence of physicians and poor integration between malaria services and primary health services make for the lack of a prescription or written instruction for malaria patients throughout the Brazilian Amazon. This fact may lead to a great number of problems in rational use and in adherence to medication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.