ArticleHealth economics review2024
Regulation of mark-up on medicine prices in Zimbabwe: a pilot survey from 92 community pharmacies in the metropolitan area of Harare.
Article in Health economics review, 2024. 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.
- Essential Medicines Availability, Pricing, and Stock-Outs for Hypertension and Diabetes in Private Retail Pharmacies in Zimbabwe.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Lived experiences of ethical dilemmas in pricing life-saving medicines among private-sector pharmacists in Zimbabwe.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedicine pricing in the community pharmacy sector in Zimbabwe significantly influences accessibility to health care. In this pilot survey, we investigated how community pharmacies in Zimbabwe apply various mark-up strategies to essential and non-essential medicines, and gathered community pharmacists' perspectives on mark-up regulation.
methodsUsing an adapted methodology endorsed by the World Health Organization and Health Action International for studying medicine prices and availability, we conducted a quantitative cross-sectional pilot survey for 46 medicines (31 essential and 15 non-essential) identified using the Zimbabwe Essential Medicines List and classified according to the Vital, Essential, and Non-essential (VEN) tool. We conducted the pilot survey in 92 community pharmacies in the metropolitan area of Harare, Zimbabwe.
resultsWe gathered a total of 92 responses from 167 distributed questionnaires. The most prevalent mark-up strategy was the cost-plus fixed percentage.The median mark-up for all medicines in the community pharmacies was 60% (interquartile range 50- 82%). We found a statistically significant difference in the median mark-up by essentiality of medicines (p < 0.001), essential medicines had a median mark-up price of 62% while non-essential medicines had a mark-up of 56%. Antipsychotics had the highest mark-up at 82%, while anti-neoplastic medicine had the lowest at 36%. Overall, 55% of the community pharmacists did not support mark-up regulation.
conclusionMark-up strategies varied across community pharmacies in the metropolitan area of Harare. Without mark-up regulation, essential medicines remain significantly expensive in Zimbabwe. We recommend mark-up regulation in Zimbabwe's community pharmacy sector and emphasize the effective use of multiple pricing strategies to reduce medicine prices. .
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.