ArticleBMJ public health2026
Variation and gaps in online pharmacy regulation: a comparative review of regulations across 12 countries.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: E-pharmacies carry enormous potential to improve access to medicines but also introduce significant regulatory concerns. This research maps the regulatory approaches governing e-pharmacies across 12 countries and identifies gaps in their scope and comprehensiveness. Design: Comparative review of regulatory documents. Data sources: Publicly accessible documents from governments, regulatory authorities and relevant national, subnational and supranational sources. Eligibility criteria: Countries (Brazil, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Singapore, South Africa, UAE, UK and USA) were purposively selected to capture geographic and regulatory diversity. Data extraction and synthesis: We extracted e-pharmacy-related regulatory text using a piloted tool, categorising identified requirements across 10 domains: licensure, accreditation, medicine sale, website content, data privacy, quality, operational oversight, advertising, penalties and other technological aspects. We also developed a 15-item subset of basic requirements and assessed regulatory comprehensiveness. Results: From 41 documents, we identified 43 regulatory requirements, with substantial country and regional variation in whether each was mandated, permitted, prohibited or unaddressed. Online sale of prescription medicines was explicitly permitted in 8 of 12 countries, but prohibited in Ireland, Japan and UAE. Most countries (n=9) required e-pharmacies to be linked to a brick-and-mortar pharmacy. Four countries prohibited online sale of narcotics. Approaches for verifying website authenticity included displaying licence numbers (n=5) and using a 'common logo' (n=5). Fewer regulations addressed newer technological developments, including mobile apps (n=2) and social media (n=1). Kenya and the UK met all requirements on our 15-item checklist, indicating higher comprehensiveness. Conclusion: We identified substantial variation in how e-pharmacy regulations addressed the 10 regulatory domains, particularly licensure, medicine sale and website authenticity. Gaps in regulatory coverage were most evident for accreditation, penalties and integration with broader digital health systems. This review offers a practical checklist of basic regulatory requirements to help policymakers strengthen e-pharmacy governance and ensure safe access to medicines online.
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.