Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41106865›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Role of health workers and representative health worker organisations in LMIC pharmaceutical policy: a scoping review protocol.

Daniel Eisenkraft Klein, Muhammad Naveed Noor, Lindsey Eiwanger, Janice Linton, Ursula Ellis, Veena Sriram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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

6 authors.

Daniel Eisenkraft KleinProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics and Law, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA deisenkraftklein@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9451-9668
Muhammad Naveed NoorInstitute for Global Public Health, Department of Community Health Sciences, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7847-6637
Lindsey EiwangerSchool for Public Policy and Global Affairs, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Janice LintonNeil John Maclean Health Sciences Library, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3210-9022
Ursula EllisUniversity of British Columbia Library, Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5896-4852
Veena SriramSchool for Public Policy and Global Affairs, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealth workers (HWs) and their representative health worker organisations (RHWOs) contribute to the design of pharmaceutical policy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but their roles remain underappreciated. HWs and RHWOs can influence drug development, distribution, financing and access; however, which specific aspects HWs and RHWOs contribute to, and how they create change, remains insufficiently mapped within the global health literature. This protocol describes our process for conducting a scoping review to derive, describe, and classify existing literature on how HWs and RHWOs engage in pharmaceutical policy processes in LMICs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the updated Arksey and O'Malley five-stage scoping review framework supported by iterations of methodological guidance and will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We will search Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and CAB Global Health for English-language peer-reviewed literature published between 2005 and 2025. Studies must discuss HW and RHWO involvement or influence in pharmaceutical policy or describe the roles, governance contexts or strategies of HWs or RHWOs in the context of pharmaceutical policy. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts using Covidence software to determine eligibility. We will chart data using Excel and summarise the findings thematically. We will consult stakeholders in the final stage of this review to provide feedback on the results of our review and guide our findings further in terms of actionable policy implications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review of published literature. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, academic presentations and policy engagement with global health actors. This review will inform future research and support evidence-informed pharmaceutical policymaking in LMICs.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesHealth PersonnelHealth PolicyProfessional RoleHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicHealth policyMedicinePrescriptions

Identifiers

PMID41106865
PMCPMC12542556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.