ArticlePloS one2023
Access to essential psychotropic medicines in Addis Ababa: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Cost Effectiveness of Treatment Strategies for Depression in Ethiopia: A Multiple Cohort Markov Model Analysis.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Availability of essential medicines in conflict-affected african regions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Conflict and health · 2026Review
- Experiences of an unconditional cash transfer intervention among young adults with first-episode psychosis in South Africa: qualitative inquiry of patients and their caregivers.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025Article
- The triple burden: A systematic review and meta-analysis of essential medicine availability, price, and affordability across Ethiopian health facilities.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMental disorders are becoming a growing public health problem worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Regular and adequate supplies of appropriate, safe, and affordable medications are required to provide quality mental health services. However, significant proportions of the population with severe mental disorders are not getting access to treatment. Among others, the availability and affordability of psychotropic medicines are significant barriers for many patients in meeting their medication needs. This study aimed to assess the availability, prices, and affordability of essential psychotropic medicines in the private and public health sectors of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia.
methodsA cross-sectional study design was used in 60 retail medicine outlets from the public and private sectors. Stratified random and quota sampling were applied to select the retail outlets. Data was entered and analyzed using the preprogrammed WHO/HAI workbook and SPSS V.25.
resultsThe mean availability of Lower Priced Generic (LPG) psychotropic medicines was 24.33% in Addis Ababa (28.7% in the public sector and 19.80% in the private sector). The Patient prices for the LPG ranged from 0.52-6.43 MPRs in public and 1.08-24.28 MPRs in private sectors. Standard treatment costs varied from 0.1-7.8 days' wages in public and 0.8-25 days' wages in private sectors for the lowest-paid government worker to purchase a month's supply.
conclusionsEssential psychotropic medicines were poorly available, with high prices and low affordability in Addis Ababa. An efficient supply across all levels of care and financial protection for essential medicines should be in place to ensure access.
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.