Essential medicines are more available than other medicines around the globe.
Essential medicines are more available than other medicines around the globe.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0087576
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Mantel-Teeuwisse AK
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bazargani YT;Ewen M;de Boer A;Leufkens HG;Mantel-Teeuwisse AK
世界卫生组织（世卫组织）促进制定国家基本药物清单，以改善卫生保健系统内被认为是必不可少的药物的供应和使用。然而，尽管国际社会作出了30多年的努力，但研究表明，基本药物的供应情况并不一致。我们评估并比较了全球和区域两级基本药物和未列入国家基本药物清单的药物的供应情况。公共和私营部门的药品供应量是根据使用世卫组织/HAI方法在23个国家进行的国家和省级设施调查获得的数据计算的。根据调查时每个国家现行EML中包含的（“基本”）或排除的（称为“非基本”）药物对药物进行分组。计算原研药品牌、仿制药和任何产品类型（原研药品牌或仿制药）的可用性，并在两组之间进行比较。结果按世卫组织区域、世界银行国家收入组、财富不平等衡量标准和治疗组汇总。在所有部门和任何产品类型中，基本药物的可获得性中位数为61.5%（IQR 20.6%-86.7%），但明显高于非基本药物的27.3%（IQR 3.6%-70.0%）。公共部门基本药物的可获得性中位数为40.0%，私营部门为78.1%;而非基本药物的可获得性中位数分别为6.6%和57.1%。在公共部门，国民收入水平类别与基本药物供应之间的趋势相反。基本药物清单影响了药物的供应，并导致基本药物的供应高于非基本药物，特别是在公共部门和低收入和中低收入国家。然而，基本药物的供应，特别是在公共部门，并不能确保公平获得。
The World Health Organization (WHO) promotes the development of national Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs) in order to improve the availability and use of medicines considered essential within health care systems. However, despite over 3 decades of international efforts, studies show an inconsistent pattern in the availability of essential medicines. We evaluated and compared the availability of essential medicines, and medicines not included in national EMLs, at global and regional levels. Medicine availability in the public and private sector were calculated based on data obtained from national and provincial facility-based surveys undertaken in 23 countries using the WHO/HAI methodology. The medicines were grouped according to their inclusion (‘essential’) or exclusion (termed ‘non-essential’) in each country’s EML current at the time of the survey. Availability was calculated for originator brands, generics and any product type (originator brands or generics) and compared between the two groups. Results were aggregated by WHO regions, World Bank country income groups, a wealth inequality measure, and therapeutic groups. Across all sectors and any product type, the median availability of essential medicines was suboptimal at 61·5% (IQR 20·6%–86·7%) but significantly higher than non-essential medicines at 27·3% (IQR 3·6%–70·0%). The median availability of essential medicines was 40·0% in the public sector and 78·1% in the private sector; compared to 6·6% and 57·1% for non-essential medicines respectively. A reverse trend between national income level categories and the availability of essential medicines was identified in the public sector. EMLs have influenced the provision of medicines and have resulted in higher availability of essential medicines compared to non-essential medicines particularly in the public sector and in low and lower middle income countries. However, the availability of essential medicines, especially in the public sector does not ensure equitable access.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Dixit R;Vinay M;Jayasree T;Ubedulla S;Manohar VS;Chandrasekhar N
通讯作者：
Chandrasekhar N
DOI：
10.1590/s1020-49892010000400008
发表时间：
2010-04-01
期刊：
Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública
影响因子：
--
作者：
Madden, Jeanne M.;Meza, Edson;Ross-Degnan, Dennis
通讯作者：
Ross-Degnan, Dennis
影响因子：
0.4
作者：
Balasubramaniam, R.;Beneragama, B. V. S. H.;Ranganathan, S. Sri
通讯作者：
Ranganathan, S. Sri
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Cameron, Alexandra;Mantel-Teeuwisse, Aukje K.;Laing, Richard Ogilvie
通讯作者：
Laing, Richard Ogilvie
影响因子：
168.9
作者：
Cameron, A.;Ewen, M.;Laing, R.
通讯作者：
Laing, R.