Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39138251›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Evaluation of drug litigation against the Campinas municipal health system from 2017 to 2021.

Stefane Cristina Paixão Oliveira, Patricia Moriel, Michelle Bonafé, Marília Berlofa Visacri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Access to Cancer Medicines in Türkiye Through Legal Avenues: An Analysis from the Perspective of Medical Ethics.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    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

4 authors.

Stefane Cristina Paixão OliveiraSchool of Medical Sciences, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Patricia MorielFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Michelle BonaféFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Marília Berlofa VisacriSchool of Medical Sciences, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil. visacri.mb@usp.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Brazil, the judicialization of public health for access to medications has resulted in significant challenges to the management of public policies, especially at the municipal level. To evaluate the profile of drug litigations against the Campinas municipal health system from 2017 to 2021, this study analyzed the characteristics of litigants, medicine dispensation, and the timing of court decisions. A quantitative, analytical, and comparative cross-sectional study was conducted using data on the dispensation of 506 types of medications and 493 court cases. The analysis included sociodemographic, procedural, medical-sanitary, and pharmaceutical assistance management variables. The time of court decisions was assessed using the Kruskal‒Wallis test complemented by the Dunn test. The plaintiffs were predominantly adults, females, and self-declared students, and some cases involved nonresidents. Most of the lawsuits were represented by private lawyers, gratuitousness of justice and with decisions favorable to the plaintiff. However, only 43% of the patients obtained a preliminary injunction or early tutelage. The median time needed for a court decision from the date of case filing was 12 days until the granting of a preliminary injunction or early tutelage and 6.5 months until a judgment or dismissal without a decision on the merits. Approximately 32.4% of the medications dispensed by the judicial pharmacy already belonged to the list of the Brazil's Unified Health System in 2020; 46.3% were prescribed by their generic name; 75.5% had therapeutic equivalents, and 94.9% had marketing authorization from the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency. Judicialization in Campinas is an alternative way of accessing medications, but it is time-consuming and benefits only a small portion of the population (0.068%). The characteristics of the plaintiffs and judicialized medicines highlight the need to review health policies to promote equitable and efficient access to essential treatments for the population.

Indexed as

Public HealthAdultBrazilCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedJudicialization of access to medicinesRight to healthUnified Health System

Identifiers

PMID39138251
PMCPMC11322171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.