ReviewBMJ global health2017
Applying a health system perspective to the evolving Farmácia Popular medicines access programme in Brazil.
Review in BMJ global health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Role of the Strategic Level of the National Drug Regulatory Authority in Enhancing Medication Adherence in Cardiovascular Patients: An Importance-Performance Analysis Approach.Research in heart yield and translational medicine · 2026Article
- Contracting retail pharmacies as a source of essential medicines for public sector clients in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of key considerations, challenges, and opportunities.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- Factors associated with the availability and affordability of essential cardiovascular disease medicines in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Implementation of pharmaceutical services in Brazilian primary health care: a cross-sectional study.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Hypertension and diabetes treatment affordability and government expenditures following changes in patient cost sharing in the "Farmácia popular" program in Brazil: an interrupted time series study.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Inappropriate use of medicines and associated factors in Brazil: an approach from a national household survey.Health policy and planning · 2019Article
- The Brazilian private pharmaceutical market after the first ten years of the generics law.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2019Article
- Health systems research on access to medicines: unpacking challenges in implementing policies in the face of the epidemiological transition.BMJ global health · 2017Article
- Assessing the performance of local pharmaceutical systems: An analytical approach to improve access to medicine.The journal of medicine accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Farmácia Popular Program (FPP) launched a subsidy system in Brazil, but in coexistence with the ongoing regular governmental access to medicines (Unified Health System (SUS) dispensings) mechanisms, causing overlaps in terms of financing and target population. This characteristic is quite different from most countries with medicines cost-sharing schemes. This paper aims to analyse the FPP under a health systems perspective considering the different health system levels. We analysed the findings from the study 'Impact of consecutive subsidies policies on access to and use of medicines in Brazil - ISAUM-Br', designed with the objective of describing and evaluating the impact of the government medicines subsidy policies implemented between 2004 and 2011. Patient share of copayment increased with the implementation of the intervention, which decreased the reference price and decreased with SNP (
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.