Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26650544›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Essential Medicines in a High Income Country: Essential to Whom?

Mai Duong, Rebekah J Moles, Betty Chaar, Timothy F Chen, World Hospital Pharmacy Research Consortium (WHoPReC)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    Article
  2. Measuring the value of theBulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    Article
  3. Access and use of WHO essential medicines in Italy.Frontiers in public health · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Global drug shortages due to COVID-19: Impact on patient care and mitigation strategies.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Mai DuongDiscipline of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebekah J MolesDiscipline of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Betty ChaarDiscipline of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Timothy F ChenDiscipline of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
World Hospital Pharmacy Research Consortium (WHoPReC)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the perspectives of a diverse group of stakeholders engaged in medicines decision making around what constitutes an "essential" medicine, and how the Essential Medicines List (EML) concept functions in a high income country context.

methodsIn-depth qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 Australian stakeholders, recognised as decision makers, leaders or advisors in the area of medicines reimbursement or supply chain management. Participants were recruited from government, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical wholesale/distribution companies, medicines non-profit organisations, academic health disciplines, hospitals, and consumer groups. Perspectives on the definition and application of the EML concept in a high income country context were thematically analysed using grounded theory approach.

findingsStakeholders found it challenging to describe the EML concept in the Australian context because many perceived it was generally used in resource scarce settings. Stakeholders were unable to distinguish whether nationally reimbursed medicines were essential medicines in Australia. Despite frequent generic drug shortages and high prices paid by consumers, many struggled to describe how the EML concept applied to Australia. Instead, broad inclusion of consumer needs, such as rare and high cost medicines, and consumer involvement in the decision making process, has led to expansive lists of nationally subsidised medicines. Therefore, improved communication and coordination is needed around shared interests between stakeholders regarding how medicines are prioritised and guaranteed in the supply chain.

conclusionsThis study showed that decision-making in Australia around reimbursement of medicines has strayed from the fundamental utilitarian concept of essential medicines. Many stakeholders involved in medicine reimbursement decisions and management of the supply chain did not consider the EML concept in their approach. The wide range of views of what stakeholders considered were essential medicines, challenges whether the EML concept is out-dated or underutilised in high income countries.

Indexed as

AustraliaDrug CostsDrug IndustryDrugs, EssentialHealth PolicyHumansInsurance, Health, ReimbursementDrugs, Essential

Identifiers

PMID26650544
PMCPMC4674059

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.