OBJECTIVE: To assess progress in improving use of medicines in developing and transitional countries by reviewing empirical evidence, 1990-2009, concerning patterns of primary care medicine use and intervention effects. METHODS: We extracted data on medicines use, study setting, methodology and interventions from published and unpublished studies on primary care medicine use. We calculated the medians of six medicines use indicators by study year, country income level, geographic region, facility ownership and prescriber type. To estimate intervention impacts, we calculated greatest positive (GES) and median effect sizes (MES) from studies meeting accepted design criteria. RESULTS: Our review comprises 900 studies conducted in 104 countries, reporting data on 1033 study groups from public (62%), and private (mostly for profit) facilities (26%), and households. The proportion of treatment according to standard treatment guidelines was 40% in public and <30% in private-for-profit sector facilities. Most indicators showed suboptimal use and little progress over time: Average number of medicines prescribed per patient increased from 2.1 to 2.8 and the percentage of patients receiving antibiotics from 45% to 54%. Of 405 (39%) studies reporting on interventions, 110 (27%) used adequate study design and were further analysed. Multicomponent interventions had larger effects than single component ones. Median GES was 40% for provider and consumer education with supervision, 17% for provider education alone and 8% for distribution of printed education materials alone. Median MES showed more modest improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate medicine use remains a serious global problem.
OBJECTIVE: To assess progress in improving use of medicines in developing and transitional countries by reviewing empirical evidence, 1990-2009, concerning patterns of primary care medicine use and intervention effects. METHODS: We extracted data on medicines use, study setting, methodology and interventions from published and unpublished studies on primary care medicine use. We calculated the medians of six medicines use indicators by study year, country income level, geographic region, facility ownership and prescriber type. To estimate intervention impacts, we calculated greatest positive (GES) and median effect sizes (MES) from studies meeting accepted design criteria. RESULTS: Our review comprises 900 studies conducted in 104 countries, reporting data on 1033 study groups from public (62%), and private (mostly for profit) facilities (26%), and households. The proportion of treatment according to standard treatment guidelines was 40% in public and <30% in private-for-profit sector facilities. Most indicators showed suboptimal use and little progress over time: Average number of medicines prescribed per patient increased from 2.1 to 2.8 and the percentage of patients receiving antibiotics from 45% to 54%. Of 405 (39%) studies reporting on interventions, 110 (27%) used adequate study design and were further analysed. Multicomponent interventions had larger effects than single component ones. Median GES was 40% for provider and consumer education with supervision, 17% for provider education alone and 8% for distribution of printed education materials alone. Median MES showed more modest improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate medicine use remains a serious global problem.
Authors: Zach Landis-Lewis; Ronald Manjomo; Oliver J Gadabu; Matthew Kam; Bertha N Simwaka; Susan L Zickmund; Frank Chimbwandira; Gerald P Douglas; Rebecca S Jacobson Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2015-07-19 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Samantha Y Rowe; David H Peters; Kathleen A Holloway; John Chalker; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Alexander K Rowe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Veronika J Wirtz; Hans V Hogerzeil; Andrew L Gray; Maryam Bigdeli; Cornelis P de Joncheere; Margaret A Ewen; Martha Gyansa-Lutterodt; Sun Jing; Vera L Luiza; Regina M Mbindyo; Helene Möller; Corrina Moucheraud; Bernard Pécoul; Lembit Rägo; Arash Rashidian; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Peter N Stephens; Yot Teerawattananon; Ellen F M 't Hoen; Anita K Wagner; Prashant Yadav; Michael R Reich Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Laura C Steinhardt; Faustin Onikpo; Julien Kouamé; Emily Piercefield; Marcel Lama; Michael S Deming; Alexander K Rowe Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Arianna Rubin Means; Marcia R Weaver; Sarah M Burnett; Martin K Mbonye; Sarah Naikoba; R Scott McClelland Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 3.240