Dataset Information

Evidence on access to medicines for chronic diseases from household surveys in five low- and middle-income countries.

ABSTRACT: The 2011 United Nations (UN) General Assembly Political Declaration on Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) brought NCDs to the global health agenda. Essential medicines are central to treating chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes. Our study aimed to quantify access to essential medicines for people with chronic conditions in five low- and middle-income countries and to evaluate how household socioeconomic status and perceptions about medicines availability and affordability influence access. We analysed data for 1867 individuals with chronic diseases from national surveys (Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Philippines and Uganda) conducted in 2007-10 using a standard World Health Organization (WHO) methodology to measure medicines access and use. We defined individuals as having access to medicines if they reported regularly taking medicine for a diagnosed chronic disease and data collectors found a medicine indicated for that disease in their homes. We used logistic regression models accounting for the clustered survey design to investigate determinants of keeping medicines at home and predictors of access to medicines for chronic diseases. Less than half of individuals previously diagnosed with a chronic disease had access to medicines for their condition in every country, from 16% in Uganda to 49% in Jordan. Other than reporting a chronic disease, higher household socioeconomic level was the most significant predictor of having any medicines available at home. The likelihood of having access to medicines for chronic diseases was higher for those with medicines insurance coverage [highest adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.12 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.38, 7.07)] and lower for those with past history of borrowing money to pay for medicines [lowest adjusted OR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.92)]. Our study documents poor access to essential medicines for chronic conditions in five resource-constrained settings. It highlights the importance of financial risk protection and consumer education about generic medicines in global efforts towards improving treatment of chronic diseases.

SUBMITTER: Vialle-Valentin CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4654757 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence on access to medicines for chronic diseases from household surveys in five low- and middle-income countries.

Vialle-Valentin Catherine E CE Serumaga Brian B Wagner Anita K AK Ross-Degnan Dennis D

Health policy and planning 20140924 8

The 2011 United Nations (UN) General Assembly Political Declaration on Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) brought NCDs to the global health agenda. Essential medicines are central to treating chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes. Our study aimed to quantify access to essential medicines for people with chronic conditions in five low- and middle-income countries and to evaluate how household socioeconomic status and perceptions about medicines availability an ...[more]

PMID: 25255920

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mass deworming against soil-transmitted helminthiasis, which affects 1 billion of the poorest people globally, is one of the largest public health programmes for neglected tropical diseases, and is intended to be equitable. However, the extent to which treatment programmes for deworming achieve equitable coverage across wealth class and sex is unclear and the public health metric of national deworming coverage does not include representation of equity. This study aims to measure both coverage and equity in global, national, and subnational deworming to guide future programmatic evaluation, investment, and metric design. METHODS:We used nationally representative, geospatial, household data from Demographic and Health Surveys that measured mother-reported deworming in children of preschool age (12-59 months). Deworming was defined as children having received drugs for intestinal parasites in the previous 6 months before the survey. We estimated deworming coverage disaggregated by geography, wealth quintile, and sex, and computed an equity index. We examined trends in coverage and equity index across countries, within countries, and over time. We used a regression model to compute the household correlates of deworming and ecological correlates of equitable deworming. FINDINGS:Our study included 820 883 children living in 50 countries from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe that are endemic for soil-transmitted helminthiasis using 77 Demographic and Health Surveys from December, 2003, to October, 2017. In these countries, the mean deworming coverage in preschool children was estimated at 33·0% (95% CI 32·9-33·1). The subnational coverage ranged from 0·5% to 87·5%, and within-country variation was greater than between-country variation. Of the 31 countries reporting that they reached the WHO goal of more than 75% national coverage, 30 had inequity in deworming, with treatment concentrated in wealthier populations. We did not detect systematic differences in deworming equity by sex. INTERPRETATION:Substantial inequities in mass deworming programmes are common as wealthier populations have consistently higher coverage than that of the poor, including in countries reporting to have reached the WHO goal of more than 75% national coverage. These inequities seem to be geographically heterogeneous, modestly improving over time, with no evidence of sex differences in inequity. Future reporting of deworming coverage should consider disaggregation by geography, wealth, and sex with incorporation of an equity index to complement the conventional public health metric of national deworming coverage. FUNDING:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Stanford University Medical Scientist Training Program.

Project description:The incidence and mortality of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in low and middle income countries (LMICs) have been increasing, while access to CVDs medicines is suboptimal. We assessed selection of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of CVDs on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) of LMICs and potential determinants for selection.Only operational NEMLs were considered eligible for this study. A selection of medicines listed under "cardiovascular medicines" or "blood products and plasma substitutes" in the NEMLs were included if they were present on international guidelines for the prevention and treatment of CVDs (hyperlipidemia, hypertension, platelet inhibition, ischemic stroke, stable ischemic heart disease, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, peripheral arterial disease and acute limb ischemia). The number and diversity of essential medicines selected for CVDs were studied. Moreover, determinants of selection of essential medicines for CVDs at a national level were explored. Data analysis was done using univariate linear regression and non-parametric tests.All medicine groups listed by the international guidelines were selected by the majority of the 34 countries studied with the exception of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors which appeared on less than half of the NEMLs studied (41% of countries). The total number of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases (median 24 (range 16-50)) differed significantly across income levels (median range: 19.5-25, p?=?0.014) and across regions (median range: 20-32, p?=?0.049). When recommendations of the international guidelines were considered, over 75% of the NEMLs contained essential medicines for the majority of CVDs.The main medicine classes for the management of CVDs were represented on NEMLs. Consequently, for the majority of CVDs, evidence-based guideline-recommended treatment is possible as far as selection of essential medicines is concerned. Selection will therefore not be the limiting step in access to medicines for cardiovascular diseases.

Project description:BackgroundImmunisation programmes have made substantial contributions to lowering the burden of disease in children, but there is a growing need to ensure that programmes are equity-oriented. We aimed to provide a detailed update about the state of between-country inequality and within-country economic-related inequality in the delivery of three doses of the combined diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, and pertussis-containing vaccine (DTP3), with a special focus on inequalities in high-priority countries.MethodsWe used data from the latest available Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys done in 51 low-income and middle-income countries. Data for DTP3 coverage were disaggregated by wealth quintile, and inequality was calculated as difference and ratio measures based on coverage in richest (quintile 5) and poorest (quintile 1) household wealth quintiles. Excess change was calculated for 21 countries with data available at two timepoints spanning a 10 year period. Further analyses were done for six high-priority countries-ie, those with low national immunisation coverage and/or high absolute numbers of unvaccinated children. Significance was determined using 95% CIs.FindingsNational DTP3 immunisation coverage across the 51 study countries ranged from 32% in Central African Republic to 98% in Jordan. Within countries, the gap in DTP3 immunisation coverage suggested pro-rich inequality, with a difference of 20 percentage points or more between quintiles 1 and 5 for 20 of 51 countries. In Nigeria, Pakistan, Laos, Cameroon, and Central African Republic, the difference between quintiles 1 and 5 exceeded 40 percentage points. In 15 of 21 study countries, an increase over time in national coverage of DTP3 immunisation was realised alongside faster improvements in the poorest quintile than the richest. For example, in Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Gabon, Mali, and Nepal, the absolute increase in coverage was at least 2·0 percentage points per year, with faster improvement in the poorest quintile. Substantial economic-related inequality in DTP3 immunisation coverage was reported in five high-priority study countries (DR Congo, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan), but not Uganda.InterpretationOverall, within-country inequalities in DTP3 immunisation persist, but seem to have narrowed over the past 10 years. Monitoring economic-related inequalities in immunisation coverage is warranted to reveal where gaps exist and inform appropriate approaches to reach disadvantaged populations.FundingNone.

Project description:BackgroundThe chronic nature of noncommunicable diseases (NCD) and costs associated with long-term care can result in catastrophic health expenditure for the patient and their household pushing them deeper into poverty and entrenching inequality in society. As the full financial burden of NCDs is not known, the objective of this study was to explore existing evidence on the financial burden of NCDs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), specifically estimating the cost incurred by patients with NCDs and their households to inform the development of strategies to protect such households from catastrophic expenditure.MethodsThis systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines, PROSPERO: CRD42019141088. Eligible studies published between 1st January 2000 to 7th May 2020 were systematically searched for in three databases: Medline, Embase and Web of Science. A two-step process, comprising of qualitative synthesis proceeded by quantitative (cost) synthesis, was followed. The mean costs are presented in 2018 USD.Findings51 articles were included, out of which 41 were selected for the quantitative cost synthesis. Most of the studies were cross-sectional cost-of-illness studies, of which almost half focused on diabetes and/or conducted in South-East Asia. The average total costs per year to a patient/household in LMICs of COPD, CVD, cancers and diabetes were $7386.71, $6055.99, $3303.81, $1017.05, respectively.ConclusionThis review highlighted major data and methodological gaps when collecting data on costs of NCDs to households along the cascade of care in LMICs. More empirical data on cost of specific NCDs are needed to identify the diseases and contexts where social protection interventions are needed most. More rigorous and standardised methods of data collection and costing for NCDs should be developed to enable comprehensive and comparable evidence of the economic and financial burden of NCDs to patients and households in LMICs. The available evidence on costs reveals a large financial burden imposed on patients and households in seeking and receiving NCD care and emphasizes the need for adequate and reliable social protection interventions to be implemented alongside Universal Health Coverage.

Dataset Information

Evidence on access to medicines for chronic diseases from household surveys in five low- and middle-income countries.

Publications

Evidence on access to medicines for chronic diseases from household surveys in five low- and middle-income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets