Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39893431›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2025

States, global power and access to medicines: a comparative case study of China, India and the United States, 2000-2019.

Berit S H Hembre, Maulik Chokshi, Steven J Hoffman, Fatima Suleman, Steinar Andresen, Kristin Sandberg, John-Arne Røttingen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Berit S H HembreNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, Norway. berit.hembre@legemiddelverket.no.ORCID 0009-0004-8724-475X
Maulik ChokshiACCESS Health International, New Delhi, India.
Steven J HoffmanGlobal Strategy Lab, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Fatima SulemanSchool of Health Sciences, University of Kwa-Zulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa.
Steinar AndresenFridtjof Nansen Institute, P.O.Box 326, Oslo, 1326, Norway.
Kristin SandbergFridtjof Nansen Institute, P.O.Box 326, Oslo, 1326, Norway.
John-Arne RøttingenNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, Norway.

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd GLOBVAC Project 234608
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhat constitutes state`s global power to shape access to medicines? How was it distributed between states and how did this change from 2000 to 2019? In this comparative case study, we explored the powers of China, India and the United States, and discuss whether our findings from the pre-pandemic era were reflected in the global COVID-19 response related to pharmaceuticals. We used an analytical framework from the international relations literature on structural power, and assessed the following power structures after adapting them to the context of access to medicines: finance, production, financial protection, knowledge, trade and official development assistance.

resultsWe found that from 2000 to 2019 there had been a power-shift towards China and India in terms of finance and production of pharmaceuticals, and that in particular China had increased its powers regarding knowledge and financial protection and reimbursement. The United States remained powerful in terms of finance and knowledge. The data on trade and official development assistance indicate an increasingly powerful China also within these structures. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we found that the patterns from previous decades were continued in terms of cutting-edge innovation coming out of the United States. Trade restrictions from the United States and India contrasted our findings as well as the limited effective aid from the United States. Building on our findings on structural powers, we argue that both structural power and political decisions shaped access to medical technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also examined the roles and positions of the three states regarding developments in global health governance on the COVAX mechanism, the TRIPS Agreement waiver and the pandemic accord in this context.

conclusionFrom 2000-2019, China and India increased their structural powers to shape global access to medical technologies. The recent COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that both structural power and political decisions shaped global access to COVID-19 technologies.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityChinaCOVID-19HumansIndiaInternational CooperationUnited StatesAccess to medicinesChinaCOVIDEmerging economiesGlobal healthIndiaInternational political economyStructural powerUnited StatesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID39893431
PMCPMC11787748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.