ArticleBMC health services research2025
Evaluation of a national framework for rational use of medicines in Kazakhstan and its role in improving medicine use practices at the organizational and national levels.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation Gaps in Public Outpatient Drug Programs: A Survey of Physicians in Urban Primary Care in Kazakhstan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Drug use patterns at a Kenyan referral hospital: A cross-sectional study using WHO core indicators.PloS one · 2026Article
- Comparative Phytochemical, Colloidal, and Antioxidant Profiling ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKazakhstan inherited the Semashko health system model, known for the centralized adoption of rules at the Ministry of Health (MoH) level that regulate the healthcare system. In 2019 MoH established a national framework with indicators aimed at collecting qualitative and quantitative data from healthcare organizations as part of their annual self-evaluation, and biannual external evaluation by the National Research Center for Health Development (NRCHD). The purpose of this study was to pilot the MoH framework on rational use of medicines and evaluate its effects on medicine use practices in health care organizations and at the national level. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from October to December 2019 at 22 state-owned primary health care organizations (polyclinics) serving adults and children in Astana, Kazakhstan. Data were collected by trained surveyors visiting each organization. Data were converted to numeric values to arrive at compliance scores for each organization and analyzed to assess each organization's compliance with set indicators.
resultsThe evaluation showed the rational use of medicines was assessed as "excellent" (90% < compliant) in 2 organizations (9% of the sample), "good" (75-89% compliant) in 7 organizations (32%), and "satisfactory" (50-74% compliant) in 13 organizations (59%), with an average compliance rate of 71% across the sample. 22 organization-specific evaluation reports were developed by the evaluator (NRCHD) and sent to health care organizations for corrective actions. Evaluation data triggered two improvements at the national level: correction of the default setting for trade names to international nonproprietary names within the physician ordering feature of the national health information system for medicines, and adoption of a national policy that allowed the exchange of unused stocks of medicines between polyclinics.
conclusionsUsing the national framework allowed the evaluator agency and healthcare organizations to identify organization-specific gaps and triggered improvements in the use of medicines.
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.