ArticleTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2026
Therapeutic apartheid: a cross-sectional assessment of estimated cost, accessibility, affordability, and availability among psychotropic medications across 25 regions.
Article in Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mental disorders affect approximately 20% of the global population and remain a leading cause of disability and premature mortality. Despite pharmacotherapy being central to treatment, access to psychotropic medicines is highly unequal, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. In South America, comprehensive national evaluations integrating availability, price, affordability, and geographic accessibility are scarce. Objective: To assess the availability, cost, affordability, and geographic accessibility of psychotropic medicines across public and private sectors in all regions of Peru. Design: A secondary cross-sectional analytical study. Methods: We use open-access data from the Peruvian Observatory of Pharmaceutical Products between May 20 and 25, 2025. A total of 54 psychotropic medicines were included based on the WHO and national essential medicine lists and expert consensus. Outcomes included median unit cost (interquartile range), availability (% of facilities), affordability (days of minimum wage for a 30-day treatment), and regional accessibility. Public-private cost differences were assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Cliff's Delta. Results: Only 22.2% of psychotropics were classified as essential by both WHO and national criteria. Median costs were substantially higher in the private sector, with price differences ranging from 2- to 140-fold (e.g., risperidone 2 mg: $1.41 private vs $0.01 public; Cliff's Delta = 0.99). While essential medicines were generally affordable in the public sector (<1 day of minimum wage), newer and long-acting formulations required up to 276 days of labor. Public-sector availability was limited, and geographic accessibility showed marked centralization: several Amazonian and highland regions lacked access to key psychotropics, whereas private-sector availability was near-universal. Conclusion: Psychotropic medication access in Peru is characterized by profound economic and geographic inequities. Trial registration: Not applicable.
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.