Dataset Information

A descriptive review of the methodologies used in household surveys on medicine utilization.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Studies carried out in the community enable researchers to understand access to medicines, affordability, and barriers to use from the consumer's point of view, and may stimulate the development of adequate medicines policies. The aim of the present article was to describe methodological and analytical aspects of quantitative studies on medicine utilization carried out at the household level.

Methods

Systematic review of original papers with data collected in studies in which the household was a sampling unit, published between 1995 and 2008. The electronic review was carried out in Medline/Pubmed, Scielo and Lilacs. The reference lists of the papers identified were examined, as well as other publications by their authors. Studies on the utilization of specific pharmacological groups, or those including only respondents with a given disease were excluded.

Results

Out of 4852 papers initially identified in the literature search, 61 fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Most studies were carried out in Europe and North America and used a cross-sectional approach. More than 80% used face-to-face interviews for data collection, and the most frequently used recall period for assessing medicine utilization was 14-15 days. In 59% of the studies, interviewers were trained to request the packaging of the medicines reported by the subjects; medical prescriptions were requested less frequently (15% of the studies).

Conclusion

These data will be useful for updating researchers on what methods their peers are currently using. Such information may help overcome challenges in the planning and analyses of future studies. Moreover, this publication may contribute to the improvement of the quality of medicine use data obtained in household surveys.

SUBMITTER: Bertoldi AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2584639 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A descriptive review of the methodologies used in household surveys on medicine utilization.

Bertoldi Andréa D AD Barros Aluísio J D AJ Wagner Anita A Ross-Degnan Dennis D Hallal Pedro C PC

BMC health services research 20081031

<h4>Background</h4>Studies carried out in the community enable researchers to understand access to medicines, affordability, and barriers to use from the consumer's point of view, and may stimulate the development of adequate medicines policies. The aim of the present article was to describe methodological and analytical aspects of quantitative studies on medicine utilization carried out at the household level.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review of original papers with data collected in studies in ...[more]

PMID: 18976465

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIrrational household storage of medicines is a world-wide problem, which triggers medicine wastage as well as its associated harms. This study aimed to include all available evidences from literature to perform a focused examination of the prevalence and factors associated with medicine storage and wastage among urban households. This systematic review and meta-analysis mapped the existing literature on the burden, outcomes, and affective socio-economic factors of medicine storage among urban households. In addition, this study estimated pooled effect sizes for storage and wastage rates.MethodsHousehold surveys evaluating modality, size, costs, and affective factors of medicines storage at home were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, SCOPUS, ProQuest, and Google scholar databases in 2019. Random effect meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were used to pool effect sizes for medicine storage and wastage prevalence among different geographical regions.ResultsFrom the 2604 initial records, 20 studies were selected for systematic review and 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis. An overall pooled-prevalence of medicine storage and real wastage rate was 77 and 15%, respectively. In this regard, some significant differences were observed between geographical regions. Southwest Asia region had the highest storage and wastage rates. The most common classes of medicines found in households belonged to the Infective agents for systemic (17.4%) and the Nervous system (16.4%). Moreover, income, education, age, the presence of chronic illness, female gender, and insurance coverage were found to be associated with higher home storage. The most commonly used method of disposal was throwing them in the garbage.ConclusionsFactors beyond medical needs were also found to be associated with medicine storage, which urges effective strategies in the supply and demand side of the medicine consumption chain. The first necessary step to mitigate home storage is establishing an adequate legislation and strict enforcement of regulations on dispensing, prescription, and marketing of medicines. Patient's pressure on excessive prescription, irrational storage, and use of medicines deserve efficient community-centered programs, in order to increase awareness on these issues. So, hazardous consequences of inappropriate disposal should be mitigated by different take back programs, particularly in low and middle income countries.

Project description:BackgroundAssessing the quality of medicines in low-middle income countries (LMICs) relies primarily on human inspection and screening technologies, where available. Field studies and surveys have frequently utilized screening tests to analyse medicines sampled at the point of care, such as health care facilities and medicine outlets, to provide a snap shot of medicine quality in a specific geographical area. This review presents an overview of the screening tests typically employed in surveys to assess anti-malarial medicine quality, summarizes the analytical methods used, how findings have been reported and proposes a reporting template for future studies.MethodsA systematic search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature available in the public domain (including national and multi-national medicine quality surveys) covering the period 1990-2016 was undertaken. Studies were included if they had used screening techniques to assess the quality of anti-malarial medicines. As no standardized set of guidelines for the methodology and reporting of medicine quality surveys exist, the included studies were assessed for their standard against a newly proposed list of criteria.ResultsThe titles and abstracts of 4621 records were screened and only 39 were found to meet the eligibility criteria. These 39 studies utilized visual inspection, disintegration, colorimetry and Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) either as components of the Global Pharma Health Fund (GPHF) MiniLab® or as individual tests. Overall, 30/39 studies reported employing confirmatory testing described in international pharmacopeia to verify the quality of anti-malarials post assessment by a screening test. The authors assigned scores for the 23 criteria for the standard of reporting of each study.ConclusionsThere is considerable heterogeneity in study design and inconsistency in reporting of field surveys of medicine quality. A lack of standardization in the design and reporting of studies of medicine quality increases the risk of bias and error, impacting on the generalizability and reliability of study results. The criteria proposed for reporting on the standard of studies in this review can be used in conjunction with existing medicine quality survey guidelines as a checklist for designing and reporting findings of studies. The review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026782).

Project description:BackgroundProviding financial risk protection is one of the fundamental goals of health systems. Catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and medical impoverishment (MI) are two common indicators in evaluating financial risk protection in health. As China continues its health system reform to provide accessible and affordable health care, it is important to have a clear understanding of China's progress in financial risk protection. However, past research showed discrepancies in the incidence of CHE and MI. In this article, using data from four national household surveys, we analyzed levels and characteristics of CHE and MI in China under different definitions.MethodsWe used multiple conventional thresholds for CHE and MI to comprehensively describe the levels of financial risk protection in China. We used data from four national household surveys to measure the incidence of CHE and MI, and their inequalities by urban/rural status and by income quartiles. The Probit regression model was used to explore influencing factors of CHE and MI.ResultsWe found that the incidences of CHE and MI were largely consistent across four national household surveys, despite different sampling methods and questionnaire designs. At the 40% nonfood expenditure threshold, the incidence of CHE in China was 14.95%-17.73% across four surveys during the period of 2016-2017. Meanwhile, at the 1.9 US dollars poverty line, the incidence of MI was 2.01%-5.63%. Moreover, rural residents, lower-income subgroups, and smaller households were faced with higher financial risks from healthcare expenditures. Although positive progress in financial risk protection has been achieved in recent years, China has disproportionately high incidences of CHE and MI, compared to other countries.ConclusionChina has large margins for improvements in risk financial protection, with large inequalities across subgroups. Providing better financial protection for low-income groups in rural areas is the key to improve financial protection in China.

Dataset Information

A descriptive review of the methodologies used in household surveys on medicine utilization.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A descriptive review of the methodologies used in household surveys on medicine utilization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets