Cindrel Tharumia Jagadeesan1, Veronika J Wirtz2. 1. Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health Crosstown, 3rd floor, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. cindrel22@gmail.com. 2. Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health Crosstown, 3rd floor, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measuring access to medicines has often been limited to assessing availability and affordability, while little is known regarding other dimensions of access including geographical accessibility. Our study aims to provide a systematic review of literature on the accessibility of medicines by studying the geographical distribution of pharmacies using Spatial Analytical methods. METHODS: As systematic review of scientific peer-reviewed literature between 2000 and 2018 was carried out using PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Google and the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Data regarding pharmacy density, distance to pharmacies in relation of pharmacy to sociodemographic factors and pharmacy characteristics were extracted from studies that meet the inclusion criteria. FINDINGS: Twenty papers fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which only three were from middle income countries and rest from high-income economies. Pharmacy density per population was reported in 15 studies. Although geographical information was utilized in all studies, only 14 studies reported distance to pharmacies represented as Euclidean (straight line) distance. Disparities in accessibility was reported according to population income and rural or urban location. Seven studies described additional pharmacy characteristics including opening hours, presence of a pharmacist and delivery services. CONCLUSIONS: Geographical accessibility is a key dimension of access to medicines. Pharmacy density per population is a relevant indicator to assess geographical accessibility which should be complemented by an equity analysis using socio-demographic information and population perception of accessibility.
BACKGROUND: Measuring access to medicines has often been limited to assessing availability and affordability, while little is known regarding other dimensions of access including geographical accessibility. Our study aims to provide a systematic review of literature on the accessibility of medicines by studying the geographical distribution of pharmacies using Spatial Analytical methods. METHODS: As systematic review of scientific peer-reviewed literature between 2000 and 2018 was carried out using PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Google and the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Data regarding pharmacy density, distance to pharmacies in relation of pharmacy to sociodemographic factors and pharmacy characteristics were extracted from studies that meet the inclusion criteria. FINDINGS: Twenty papers fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which only three were from middle income countries and rest from high-income economies. Pharmacy density per population was reported in 15 studies. Although geographical information was utilized in all studies, only 14 studies reported distance to pharmacies represented as Euclidean (straight line) distance. Disparities in accessibility was reported according to population income and rural or urban location. Seven studies described additional pharmacy characteristics including opening hours, presence of a pharmacist and delivery services. CONCLUSIONS: Geographical accessibility is a key dimension of access to medicines. Pharmacy density per population is a relevant indicator to assess geographical accessibility which should be complemented by an equity analysis using socio-demographic information and population perception of accessibility.
Authors: Marie A Chisholm-Burns; Christina A Spivey; Justin Gatwood; Adam Wiss; Kenneth Hohmeier; Steven R Erickson Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 2.637
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