Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24633915›Full record

SynthesisHealth policy and planning2015

Price subsidies increase the use of private sector ACTs: evidence from a systematic review.

Alexandra Morris, Abigail Ward, Bruno Moonen, Oliver Sabot, Justin M Cohen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health policy and planning, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Challenges in Treatment for Fever among School-Age Children and Adults in Malawi.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alexandra MorrisClinton Health Access Initiative, 383 Dorchester Avenue, Suite 400, Boston, MA, USA and Slingshot, 67 Riverside Dr. Nairobi Kenya 00100 London, UK alix.morris@gmail.com.
Abigail WardClinton Health Access Initiative, 383 Dorchester Avenue, Suite 400, Boston, MA, USA and Slingshot, 67 Riverside Dr. Nairobi Kenya 00100 London, UK.
Bruno MoonenClinton Health Access Initiative, 383 Dorchester Avenue, Suite 400, Boston, MA, USA and Slingshot, 67 Riverside Dr. Nairobi Kenya 00100 London, UK.
Oliver SabotClinton Health Access Initiative, 383 Dorchester Avenue, Suite 400, Boston, MA, USA and Slingshot, 67 Riverside Dr. Nairobi Kenya 00100 London, UK.
Justin M CohenClinton Health Access Initiative, 383 Dorchester Avenue, Suite 400, Boston, MA, USA and Slingshot, 67 Riverside Dr. Nairobi Kenya 00100 London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs) are the recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria in most endemic countries, they have been prohibitively expensive in the retail sector where many suspected malaria cases purchase treatment. ACT subsidies seek to stimulate consumer demand for the drugs over cheaper but often ineffective alternatives by reducing their prices. Recent evidence from eight regions implementing such subsidies suggests that they are generally successful in improving availability of the drugs and decreasing their retail prices, but it remains unclear whether these outcomes translate to improved use by patients with suspected malaria.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify reports of experimental or programmatic ACT subsidies to assess the impact of subsidies on consumer use. Relationships between price, use and potential confounding factors were examined using logistic and repeated measures binomial regression models, and approximate magnitudes of associations were assessed with linear regression. In total, 40 studies, 14 peer-reviewed and 26 non-peer-reviewed, were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The reviewed studies found a substantial increase in private sector ACT use following the introduction of a subsidy. Overall, each $1 decrease in price was linked to a 24 percentage point increase in the fraction of suspected malaria cases purchasing ACTs (R(2) = 0.302). No significant differences were evident in this relationship when comparing the poorest and richest groups, rural vs urban populations or children vs adults.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that ACT price reductions can increase their use for suspected malaria, even within poorer, more remote populations that may be most at risk of malaria mortality. Whether a subsidy is appropriate will depend upon local context, including treatment-seeking behaviours and malaria prevalence. This review provides an initial foundation for policymakers to make evidence-based decisions regarding ACT price reductions to increase use of potentially life-saving drugs.

Indexed as

Prescription FeesAfricaAntimalarialsArtemisininsDrug Therapy, CombinationHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMalariaPrivate SectorRural PopulationUrban PopulationAntimalarialsartemisininArtemisininsartemisinin combination therapiesmalariaSubsidysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID24633915
PMCPMC4353896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.