ArticlePloS one2019
The right to health as the basis for universal health coverage: A cross-national analysis of national medicines policies of 71 countries.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting patient rights in nursing care in Ghana through the Caring Space Model.Ghana medical journal · 2025Article
- The patient 'must find his own way': public policies concerning access to medicines in Angola.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Addressing epistemic injustice in the mental healthcare of Indigenous people in Bangladesh: Implications for global mental health.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2025Review
- A proposed analytical framework for qualitative evaluation of access to medicines from a health systems perspective.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- Shaping the future of global access to safe, effective, appropriate and quality health products.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Litigation in access to universal health coverage for children and adolescents in Brazil.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- An exploratory study of the mandate and functions of national pharmaceutical services units: global trends and the cases of Côte d'Ivoire, Kenya, and Nepal.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
- Unpacking the process of developing South Africa's national drug policy - lessons for universal health coverage.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
- A desktop review of evaluation of implementation of national medicines policies in SADC countries.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Framing access to essential medicines in the context of Universal Health Coverage: a critical analysis of health sector strategic plans from eight countries in the WHO African region.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Universal healthcare coverage, patients' rights, and nurse-patient communication: a critical review of the evidence.BMC nursing · 2022Review
- Should COVID-19 Vaccines Authorized for Emergency Use Be Considered "Essential" Medicines?Health and human rights · 2021Article
- An intersectional human rights approach to prioritising access to COVID-19 vaccines.BMJ global health · 2021Review
- Universal access to essential medicines as part of the right to health: a cross-national comparison of national laws, medicines policies, and health system indicators.Global health action · 2020Article
- Essential Medicines in Universal Health Coverage: A Scoping Review of Public Health Law Interventions and How They Are Measured in Five Middle-Income Countries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Pharmaceutical patents: reconciling the human right to health with the incentive to invent.Drug discovery today · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Persistent barriers to universal access to medicines are limited social protection in the event of illness, inadequate financing for essential medicines, frequent stock-outs in the public sector, and high prices in the private sector. We argue that greater coherence between human rights law, national medicines policies, and universal health coverage schemes can address these barriers. We present a cross-national content analysis of national medicines policies from 71 countries published between 1990-2016. The World Health Organization's (WHO) 2001 guidelines for developing and implementing a national medicines policy and all 71 national medicines policies were assessed on 12 principles, linking a health systems approach to essential medicines with international human rights law for medicines affordability and financing for vulnerable groups. National medicines policies most frequently contain measures for medicines selection and efficient spending/cost-effectiveness. Four principles (legal right to health; government financing; efficient spending; and financial protection of vulnerable populations) are significantly stronger in national medicines policies published after 2004 than before. Six principles have remained weak or absent: pooling user contributions, international cooperation, and four principles for good governance. Overall, South Africa (1996), Indonesia and South Sudan (2006), Philippines (2011-2016), Malaysia (2012), Somalia (2013), Afghanistan (2014), and Uganda (2015) include the most relevant texts and can be used as models for other settings. We conclude that WHO's 2001 guidelines have guided the content and language of many subsequent national medicines policies. WHO and national policy makers can use these principles and the practical examples identified in our study to further align national medicines policies with human rights law and with Target 3.8 for universal access to essential medicines in the Sustainable Development Goals.
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.