ArticleRevista de saude publica2024
Access to medicines, the Unified Health System, and intersectional injustices.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the prevalence of general and public access to prescription drugs in the Brazilian population aged 15 or older in 2019, and to identify inequities in access, according to intersections of gender, color/race, socioeconomic level, and territory.
methodsWe analyzed data from the 2019 National Health Survey with respondents aged 15 years or older who had been prescribed a medication in a healthcare service in the two weeks prior to the interview (n = 19,819). The outcome variable was access to medicines, subdivided into general access (public, private and mixed), public access (via the Unified Health System - SUS) for those treated by the SUS, and public access (via the SUS) for those not treated by the SUS. The study's independent variables were used to represent axes of marginalization: gender, color/race, socioeconomic level, and territory. The prevalence of general and public access in the different groups analyzed was calculated and the association of the outcomes with the aforementioned axes was estimated with odds ratios (OR) using logistic regression models.
resultsThere was a high prevalence of general access (84.9%), when all sources of access were considered, favoring more privileged segments of the population, such as men, white, and those of high socioeconomic status. When only the medicines prescribed in the SUS were considered, there was a low prevalence (30.4% access) that otherwise benefited marginalized population segments, such as women, black, and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
conclusionsAccess to medicines through the SUS proves to be an instrument for combating intersectional inequities, lending credence to the idea that the SUS is an efficient public policy for promoting social justice.
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.