ArticleBMJ open2025
Comprehensive framework for prioritisation of health technologies for updating of essential medicines list to primary healthcare engaging stakeholders: a mixed-methods study protocol.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth systems must guarantee access to quality, safe and effective medicines. Essential medicine lists (EMLs) are crucial prioritisation tools to inform coverage decisions and steward limited health resources under the context of universal healthcare. This study aims to develop a consolidated framework for prioritising the assessment of health technologies to review and update EML for treating diseases or health problems managed in primary healthcare (PHC). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods approach was designed to validate the framework. An initial scoping systematic review will be conducted to search for studies that describe criteria used to prioritise the assessment of health technologies for PHC. The relevant studies will be examined using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework for scoping review studies. A comprehensive search was conducted in the following sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Virtual Health Library (LILACS, WHO IRIS, IBECS, PAHO-IRIS, PAHO, LIS, BRISA), Health System Evidence, Global Healths, Health Evidence and Epistemonikos from the inception until February 2025. Two review authors will screen and extract data independently. The extracted data will be qualitatively analysed and presented in a diagrammatic or tabular form, alongside a narrative summary, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. An iterative process online using the Delphi hybrid with stakeholders through predetermined consensus thresholds, a combination of a four-point Likert scale and open-ended questions will be conducted to select and validate the criteria identified in the scoping review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will provide a consolidated framework to inform decision-makers for prioritising the assessment of health technologies for the national EML for PHC. This is an important step in using evidence to inform public health policies. We plan to share findings through a variety of means, including publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at national conferences, invited workshops and webinars, email discussion lists affiliated with our institutions and professional associations, and academic social media.
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.