ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Study on the accessibility and affordability of 50 drugs in Wuhan based on the WHO/HAI standardization method.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. 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.
- Availability, prices and affordability of nationally negotiated antidiabetic medicines in China: a national survey.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Supply Chain Vulnerabilities in First-Line Treatments for Sexually Transmitted Infections: Implications for U.S. Public Health Preparedness.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
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
Objective: To understand the availability and affordability of essential drugs in Wuhan since the implementation of the national essential medicine system, and to provide a basis for the subsequent formulation and improvement of related policies. Methods: Using the standard survey method jointly developed by the WHO and Health Action International (HAI), a sample of 50 essential drugs was selected to investigate and evaluate their availability and affordability in public medical and health institutions and social retail pharmacies in Wuhan, using six diseases with high clinical morbidity as the targets. Results: The availability of the original drug and the lowest-priced generic drug in public hospitals is 26.4 and 42.47% respectively, and that in retail pharmacies is 26.8 and 54.4% respectively. The median price ratio of the original drug and the lowest-priced generic drug is 28.71 and 2.23 respectively in public hospitals, and 29.24 and 3.59 respectively in retail pharmacies; In addition to individual drugs, such as omeprazole, others are affordable. The availability of essential drugs in public hospitals in Wuhan is lower than that in social retail pharmacies, and the availability of the lowest-priced generic drugs is much higher than that of original drugs. Conclusion: The availability of essential drugs in public hospitals in Wuhan is lower than that in social retail pharmacies, and the availability of the lowest-priced generic drugs is much higher than that of original drugs. The price of the original drug is much higher than the international reference price; The price of medicines in public hospitals is lower than that in retail pharmacies;the overall condition of affordability is good, but there is a big gap between the affordability levels of original drugs and generic drugs, and the affordability of original drugs is relatively poor. It is recommended to adjust the relevant policies according to the actual situation of Wuhan city itself, moderately ensure the supply of original drugs, improve the price transparency of retail pharmacies, and ensure that the basic drug needs of the public are met.
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.