ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of drug litigation against the Campinas municipal health system from 2017 to 2021.
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.
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.
- 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 · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.