ArticleGlobal health action2025
Logics of acquiring medicines from informal retailers in four African countries.
Article in Global health action, 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.
- Perspectives and Challenges of Healthcare Professionals, Patients, and Caregivers Regarding Utilizing Antibiotics and Implementing Antibiotic Stewardship in Healthcare Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Motivating factors and strategies to prevent substandard and falsified medicines in low- and middle-income countries.The journal of medicine accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn sub-Saharan Africa and other low-income contexts, informal medicine markets are widespread. Understanding the drivers of consumer demand is important, especially given the concerns and risks associated with medicines in the informal sector.
objectivesThis study aims to 1) describe the informal medicine sector in four anglophone African countries, and 2) understand why people patronize informal medicine sellers.
methodsParticipant observation was conducted in eight markets (37 market stalls) across Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Uganda, supplemented by data collected during focus group discussions (with
resultsWe identified four distinct groups of actors in the informal medicine sector: sellers at weekly markets, itinerant peddlers, roadside sellers, and operators of general provision shops. There were multiple rationales for patronage of informal sellers that varied depending on the context, including flexibility in payment options, convenience and accessibility, and social/cultural drivers. Importantly, there were tradeoffs and tensions between these drivers that participants had to negotiate within the contexts of their current circumstances.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that the informal medicine market is segmented and complex, and that patronage is driven by multiple logics that are rooted in gaps in formal healthcare provision. Regulatory measures therefore need to go hand-in-hand with efforts to address these gaps and expand effective access to quality-assured medicines through [inter alia] offering more flexible modes of payment, reducing public-sector medicine stock-outs, and improving patient-physician trust and communication.
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.