Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24764540›Full record

ReviewJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2013

National medicines policies - a review of the evolution and development processes.

Joëlle M Hoebert, Liset van Dijk, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Hubert Gm Leufkens, Richard O Laing

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. National medicines policy development, Saudi Arabia.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Joëlle M HoebertDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Liset van DijkNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Aukje K Mantel-TeeuwisseDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Hubert Gm LeufkensDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Richard O LaingDepartment of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesContinuous provision of appropriate medicines of assured quality, in adequate quantities, and at reasonable prices is a concern for all national governments. A national medicines policy (NMP) developed in a collaborative fashion identifies strategies needed to meet these objectives and provides a comprehensive framework to develop all components of a national pharmaceutical sector. To meet the health needs of the population, there is a general need for medicine policies based on universal principles, but nevertheless adapted to the national situation. This review aims to provide a quantitative and qualitative (describing the historical development) study of the development process and evolution of NMPs.

methodsThe number of NMPs and their current status has been obtained from the results of the assessment of WHO Level I indicators. The policy formulation process is examined in more detail with case studies from four countries: Sri Lanka, Australia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and South Africa.

resultsThe number of NMPs worldwide has increased in the last 25 years with the highest proportional increase in the last 5-10 years in high-income countries. Higher income countries seem to have more NMP implementation plans available and have updated their NMP more recently. The four case studies show that the development of a NMP is a complex process that is country specific. In addition, it demonstrates that an appropriate political window is needed for the policy to be passed (for South Africa and the FYR Macedonia, a major political event acted as a trigger for initiating the policy development). Policy-making does not stop with the official adoption of a policy but should create mechanisms for implementation and monitoring. The NMPs of the FYR Macedonia and Australia provide indicators for monitoring.

conclusionsTo date, not all countries have a NMP since political pressure by national experts or non-governmental organizations is generally needed to establish a NMP. Case studies in four countries showed that the policy process is just as important as the policy document since the process must create a mechanism by which all stakeholders are brought together and a sense of collective ownership of the final policy may be achieved.

Indexed as

DevelopmentMedicinesNational medicines policyOpportunitiesPolicy process

Identifiers

PMID24764540
PMCPMC3987068

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.