ArticlePloS one2015
Essential Medicines in a High Income Country: Essential to Whom?
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Measuring the value of theBulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024Article
- Access and use of WHO essential medicines in Italy.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- National adaptation and implementation of WHO Model List of Essential Medicines: A qualitative evidence synthesis.PLoS medicine · 2022Review
- Changes in Purchases for Intensive Care Medicines During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Global Time Series Study.Chest · 2021Article
- Assessing variation among the national essential medicines lists of 21 high-income countries: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Global drug shortages due to COVID-19: Impact on patient care and mitigation strategies.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2021Article
- Pharmaceutical patents: reconciling the human right to health with the incentive to invent.Drug discovery today · 2020Review
- Acceptability and feasibility of a national essential medicines list in Canada: a qualitative study of perceptions of decision-makers and policy stakeholders.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on the challenges surrounding management and supply of essential medicines.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Article
- Essential Medicines at the National Level: The Global Asthma Network's Essential Asthma Medicines Survey 2014.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Article
- Availability and Affordability of Drugs With a Conditional Approval by the European Medicines Agency; Comparison of Korea With Other Countries and the Implications.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.