ArticleAfrican health sciences2020
Consumption of psychotropic medicines at a referral hospital in Namibia: findings and implications.
Article in African health sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
settingIn Namibia, the burden of mental illnesses is estimated at 25.6% and is expected to double by 2025. Few studies in sub-Saharan Africa estimate the consumption rates of psychotropic medicines as a proxy of irrational use.
aimThe consumption rate of psychotropic medicines at a referral hospital was determined.
methodsA hospital-based retrospective medicine utilization analysis of Facility Electronic Stock Card (FESC) psychotropic medication was conducted at Intermediate Hospital Katutura over a 7 year period, 2011-2017. Data on consumption and expenditure on psychotropic medicines were abstracted from FESC and analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS v22. The main outcomes were consumption rates, daily Defined Dose, (DDD) and/or expenditure.
resultsOf the 580 351,4 DDD of psychotropic medicines consumed, 84% were anti-psychotics, 9.2% anti-depressants and 6.8% anxiolytics. Anti-psychotics (48.8%) and anxiolytics (47.9%) had the highest consumption by cost relative to anti-depressants (3.3%). The most consumed antidepressants were imipramine (62%) by DDD and fluoxetine (55.8%) by cost. The most consumed anti-psychotics were chlorpromazine (74.6%) by DDD and haloperidol (68.4%) by cost respectively. Diazepam (79.4%) and hydroxyzine (94.2%) were most consumed sedative-hypnotics by DDD and cost respectively.
conclusionThe consumption of new psychotropics contributes to higher costs. There is need for cost-effectiveness analysis of new versus conventional psychotropics to optimize treatment, outcomes and costs.
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.