ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
MedMinas project: design and use of mixed methods in the evaluation of pharmaceutical services in primary health care in Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drug dispensing in public community pharmacies: evidence from the MedMinas project.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- An analysis of the essential medicines policy in primary care: Findings from MedMinas project.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe main purposes of primary care-based pharmaceutical services (PHCPS) in Brazil are to provide free access to medicines and pharmaceutical care to patients. Several obstacles hinder achieving their goals; thus, MedMinas Project aimed to evaluate the PHCPS, the supply system, and the use of medicines. This paper reflects on our experience designing, planning, and conducting the project, describing the issues yielded in the field and lessons learned.
methodsThis work consists of a mixed-methods study conducted in Minas Gerais, Southeastern Brazil. We adopted the principles of Rapid Evaluation Methods, employing a multistage stratified sampling for the quantitative and a purposeful sampling for the qualitative components, respectively, and a documentary research. Data sources included individuals (patients and professionals), prescriptions, dispensed medicines, and policy documents collected between April and October 2019. The quantitative data described in this paper were analysed by descriptive statistics and the qualitative by Thematic Content Analysis.
resultsA total of 26 municipalities varying from 37,784 to 409,341 inhabitants were included. The field team spent, on average, 16 days in each location. We interviewed 1019 respondents, of which 127 were professionals and 892 patients. The participation rate varied from 92 to 100%, depending on the respondent subgroup. Most interviews lasted between 45 min and one hour. Fieldwork challenges included participants' enrolment, field team, interview processes, and project budget. The participants provided positive feedback and five main themes emerged from the interview experience (self-awareness, sense of gratitude, research value, access to findings, and benefits of the research). Additionally, we collected copies of 1072 documents and 2070 pieces of data from prescriptions filled and medicines dispensed at the PCP.
conclusionWe demonstrated the viability of conducting the MedMinas Project in an extensive geographic area within effective time frames that provided meaningful, high-quality data from multiple actors. The methods and lessons learned are valuable for researchers across various disciplines in similar urban settings in Brazil and other countries of low- and middle-income (LMIC).
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.