Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31775767›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2019

Analyzing the impact of trade and investment agreements on pharmaceutical policy: provisions, pathways and potential impacts.

Deborah Gleeson, Joel Lexchin, Ronald Labonté, Belinda Townsend, Marc-André Gagnon, Jillian Kohler, Lisa Forman, Kenneth C Shadlen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. International Trade and Health in Thailand: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    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

8 authors.

Deborah GleesonSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. d.gleeson@latrobe.edu.au.
Joel LexchinSchool of Health Policy & Management, York University, Toronto, Canada.
Ronald LabontéSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Belinda TownsendSchool of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Marc-André GagnonSchool of Public Policy & Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Jillian KohlerLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Lisa FormanDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Kenneth C ShadlenDepartment of International Development, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrade and investment agreements negotiated after the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have included increasingly elevated protection of intellectual property rights along with an expanding array of rules impacting many aspects of pharmaceutical policy. Despite the large body of literature on intellectual property and access to affordable medicines, the ways in which other provisions in trade agreements can affect pharmaceutical policy and, in turn, access to medicines have been little studied. There is a need for an analytical framework covering the full range of provisions, pathways, and potential impacts, on which to base future health and human rights impact assessment and research. A framework exploring the ways in which trade and investment agreements may affect pharmaceutical policy was developed, based on an analysis of four recently negotiated regional trade agreements. First a set of core pharmaceutical policy objectives based on international consensus was identified. A systematic comparative analysis of the publicly available legal texts of the four agreements was undertaken, and the potential impacts of the provisions in these agreements on the core pharmaceutical policy objectives were traced through an analysis of possible pathways.

resultsAn analytical framework is presented, linking ten types of provisions in the four trade agreements to potential impacts on four core pharmaceutical policy objectives (access and affordability; safety, efficacy, and quality; rational use of medicines; and local production capacity and health security) via various pathways.

conclusionsThe analytical framework highlights provisions in trade and investment agreements that need to be examined, pathways that should be explored, and potential impacts that should be taken into consideration with respect to pharmaceutical policy. This may serve as a useful checklist or template for health and human rights impact assessments and research on the implications of trade agreements for pharmaceuticals.

Indexed as

Public PolicyCanadaCommerceCosts and Cost AnalysisHealth Services AccessibilityHumansIntellectual PropertyInternational CooperationInvestmentsMexicoPharmaceutical PreparationsUnited StatesPharmaceutical PreparationsAccess to medicinesComprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific PartnershipComprehensive Economic and Trade AgreementCPTPPPharmaceutical policyPharmaceuticalsTPP-11Trade agreementsTrans-Pacific PartnershipTRIPSUnited States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

Identifiers

PMID31775767
PMCPMC6882307

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.