ArticleHealth policy and planning2025
Can public education campaigns equitably counter the use of substandard and falsified medical products in African countries?
Article in Health policy and planning, 2025. 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.
- Logics of acquiring medicines from informal retailers in four African countries.Global health action · 2025Article
- Perceptions and practices on substandard and falsified medicines in humans and animals in Wakiso district, Uganda: A qualitative study.PloS one · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Substandard and falsified (SF) medical products are a serious health and economic concern that disproportionately impact low- and middle-income countries and marginalized groups. Public education campaigns are demand-side interventions that may reduce the risk of SF exposure, but the effectiveness of such campaigns, and their likelihood of benefitting everybody, is unclear. Nationwide pilot risk communication campaigns, involving multiple media, were deployed in Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Uganda in 2020-21. Focus group discussions (n = 73 with n = 611 total participants) and key informant interviews (n = 80 individual interviews and n = 4 group interviews with n = 111 total informants) were conducted within each of the four countries to ascertain the reach and effectiveness of the campaign. Small proportions of focus group discussants (8.0-13.9%) and key informants (12.5-31.4%) had previously encountered the campaign materials. Understandability varied: the use of English and select local languages, combined with high rates of illiteracy, meant that some were not able to understand the campaign. The capacity for people to act on the messages was extremely limited: inaccessibility, unavailability, and unaffordability of quality-assured medicines from official sources, as well as illiteracy, constrained what people could realistically do in response to the campaign. Importantly, reach, understandability, and capacity to respond were especially limited among marginalized groups, who are already at the greatest risk of exposure to SF products. These findings suggest that there may be potential for public education campaigns to help combat the issue of SF medicines through prevention, but that the impact of public education is likely to be limited and may even inadvertently widen health inequities. This indicates that public education campaigns are not a single solution; they can only be properly effective if accompanied by health system strengthening and supply-side interventions that aim to increase the effectiveness of regulation.
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.