Consumption and Lack of Access to Medicines and Associated Factors in the Brazilian Amazon: A Cross-Sectional Study, 2019.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tiguman GMB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7573467 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Consumption and Lack of Access to Medicines and Associated Factors in the Brazilian Amazon: A Cross-Sectional Study, 2019.
Tiguman Gustavo Magno Baldin GMB Silva Marcus Tolentino MT Galvão Taís Freire TF
Frontiers in pharmacology 20201006
<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to investigate the consumption and lack of access to medicines in the adult population of Manaus, Amazonas.<h4>Methods</h4>A population-based study was conducted in Manaus in 2019. Individuals aged ≥18 years were selected by probabilistic sampling performed in three stages. Study outcomes included the consumption of medicines in the previous fortnight and the lack of access to treatments in those who used any medicine. We calculated the prevalence ratios (PR) for the o ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:To analyze perceptions of health-related quality of life and associated factors in populations from the Manaus Metropolitan Region.We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study from May to August 2015. Adults aged 18 years and older were selected using probabilistic three-phase cluster sampling and stratified by sex and age, based on official estimates. Quality of life data were collected using the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ-5D-3L) along with socioeconomic, demographic, and health perception data. Utility scores were calculated using the Brazilian version of the EQ-5D-3L. Descriptive statistics were derived, and a multivariate Tobit regression model with correction for complex sampling was performed to identify the variables that influence utility levels.A total of 4001 participants were included. The average utility score was 0.886 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.881-0.890) with significant differences according to living area (the capital (0.882 ± 0.144) or inner cities (0.908 ± 0.122; p < 0.001)). The dimension for which the highest proportion of people reported moderate to severe problems was pain/discomfort (39%), followed by anxiety/depression (18%). Men had a higher quality of life than women (β = 0.041, p < 0.001). Not working was a factor that increased quality of life compared with being formally employed (β = 0.031, p = 0.037). The poorest people had a lower quality of life than the richest people (β = -0.118, p < 0.001). Better health perceptions increased utility scores (p < 0.001), while being separated decreased the scores (β = -0.052, p = 0.001).Health-related quality of life in the Manaus Metropolitan Region was high, as expected for the general population, and was higher among individuals who lived in the inner cities, men and those in higher social classes. Gender discrepancies and differences in quality of life between the capital and inner cities should be further investigated.
| S-EPMC5556350 | biostudies-other
Project description:Abstract Objective To analyze the premarket purchase commitments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) vaccines from leading manufacturers to recipient countries. Design Cross sectional analysis. Data sources World Health Organization’s draft landscape of covid-19 candidate vaccines, along with company disclosures to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, company and foundation press releases, government press releases, and media reports. Eligibility criteria and data analysis Premarket purchase commitments for covid-19 vaccines, publicly announced by 15 November 2020. Main outcome measures Premarket purchase commitments for covid-19 vaccine candidates and price per course, vaccine platform, and stage of research and development, as well as procurement agent and recipient country. Results As of 15 November 2020, several countries have made premarket purchase commitments totaling 7.48 billion doses, or 3.76 billion courses, of covid-19 vaccines from 13 vaccine manufacturers. Just over half (51%) of these doses will go to high income countries, which represent 14% of the world’s population. The US has reserved 800 million doses but accounts for a fifth of all covid-19 cases globally (11.02 million cases), whereas Japan, Australia, and Canada have collectively reserved more than one billion doses but do not account for even 1% of current global covid-19 cases globally (0.45 million cases). If these vaccine candidates were all successfully scaled, the total projected manufacturing capacity would be 5.96 billion courses by the end of 2021. Up to 40% (or 2.34 billion) of vaccine courses from these manufacturers might potentially remain for low and middle income countries–less if high income countries exercise scale-up options and more if high income countries share what they have procured. Prices for these vaccines vary by more than 10-fold, from $6.00 (£4.50; €4.90) per course to as high as $74 per course. With broad country participation apart from the US and Russia, the COVAX Facility—the vaccines pillar of the World Health Organization’s Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator—has secured at least 500 million doses, or 250 million courses, and financing for half of the targeted two billion doses by the end of 2021 in efforts to support globally coordinated access to covid-19 vaccines. Conclusions This study provides an overview of how high income countries have secured future supplies of covid-19 vaccines but that access for the rest of the world is uncertain. Governments and manufacturers might provide much needed assurances for equitable allocation of covid-19 vaccines through greater transparency and accountability over these arrangements.
| S-EPMC7735431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Wealth-based inequity in access to medicines is an impediment to achieving universal health coverage in many low-income and middle-income countries. We explored the relationship between household wealth and access to medicines for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Kenya.We administered a cross-sectional survey to a sample of patients prescribed medicines for hypertension, diabetes or asthma. Data were collected on medicines available in the home, including the location and cost of purchase. Household asset information was used to construct an indicator of wealth. We analysed the relationship between household wealth and various aspects of access, including the probability of having NCD medicines at home and price paid.Among 639 patients interviewed, hypertension was the most prevalent NCD (69.6%), followed by diabetes (22.2%) and asthma (20.2%). There was a positive and statistically significant association between wealth and having medicines for patients with hypertension (p=0.020) and asthma (p=0.016), but not for diabetes (p=0.160). Poorer patients lived farther from their nearest health facility (p=0.050). There was no relationship between household wealth and the probability that the nearest public or non-profit health facility had key NCD medicines in stock, though less poor patients were significantly more likely to purchase medicines at better stocked private outlets. The relationship between wealth and median price paid for metformin by patients with diabetes was strongly u-shaped, with the middle quintile paying the lowest prices and the poorest and least poor paying higher prices. Patients with asthma in the poorest wealth quintile paid more for salbutamol than those in all other quintiles.The poorest in Kenya appear to face increased barriers to accessing NCD medicines as compared with the less poor. To achieve universal health coverage, the country will need to consider pro-poor policies for improving equity in access.
| S-EPMC6035514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Malaria and dengue are the most prevalent vector-borne diseases worldwide and represent major public health problems. Both are endemic in tropical regions, propitiating co-infection. Only few co-infection cases have been reported around the world, with insufficient data so far to enhance the understanding of the effects of co-infection in the clinical presentation and severity.A cross-sectional study was conducted (2009 to 2011) in hospitalized patients with acute febrile syndrome in the Brazilian Amazon. All patients were submitted to thick blood smear and PCR for Plasmodium sp. detection, ELISA, PCR and NS1 tests for dengue, viral hepatitis, HIV and leptospirosis. In total, 1,578 patients were recruited. Among them, 176 (11.1%) presented P. vivax malaria mono-infection, 584 (37%) dengue fever mono-infection, and 44 (2.8%) were co-infected. Co-infected patients had a higher chance of presenting severe disease (vs. dengue mono-infected), deep bleeding (vs. P. vivax mono-infected), hepatomegaly, and jaundice (vs. dengue mono-infected).In endemic areas for dengue and malaria, jaundice (in dengue patients) and spontaneous bleeding (in malaria patients) should raise the suspicion of co-infection. Besides, whenever co-infection is confirmed, we recommend careful monitoring for bleeding and hepatic complications, which may result in a higher chance of severity, despite of the fact that no increased fatality rate was seen in this group.
| S-EPMC4207662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate medicine prices, availability and affordability in Brazil, considering the differences across three types of medicines (originator brands, generics and similar medicines) and different types of facilities (private pharmacies, public sector pharmacies and "popular pharmacies").MethodsData on prices and availability of 50 medicines were collected in 56 pharmacies across six cities in Southern Brazil using the World Health Organization / Health Action International methodology. Median prices obtained were divided by international reference prices to derive the median price ratio (MPR).ResultsIn the private sector, prices were 8.6 MPR for similar medicines, 11.3 MRP for generics and 18.7 MRP for originator brands, respectively. Mean availability was 65%, 74% and 48% for originator brands, generics and similar medicines, respectively. In the public sector, mean availability of similar medicines was 2-7 times higher than that of generics. Mean overall availability in the public sector ranged from 68.8% to 81.7%. In "popular pharmacies", mean availability was greater than 90% in all cities.ConclusionsAvailability of medicines in the public sector does not meet the challenge of supplying essential medicines to the entire population, as stated in the Brazilian constitution. This has unavoidable repercussions for affordability, particularly amongst the lower socio-economic strata.
| S-EPMC3511298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the Brazilian Amazon, long distances, low healthcare coverage, common use of ineffective or deleterious self-care practices, and resistance to seeking medical assistance have an impact on access to antivenom treatment. This study aimed to estimate snakebite underreporting, and analyze barriers that prevent victims from obtaining healthcare in communities located in 15 municipalities on the banks of the Solimões, Juruá and Purus Rivers, in the remote Western Brazilian Amazon. Information on the participants' demographics, previous snakebites, access to healthcare, time taken to reach medical assistance, use of self-care practices, and the reason for not accessing healthcare were collected through semi-structured interviews. In the case of deaths, information was collected by interviewing parents, relatives or acquaintances. A total of 172 participants who reported having suffered snakebites during their lifetime were interviewed. A total of 73 different treatment procedures was reported by 65.1% of the participants. Participants living in different river basins share few self-care procedures that use traditional medicine, and 91 (52.9%) participants reported that they had access to healthcare. Living in communities along the Juruá River [OR = 12.6 (95% CI = 3.2-49.7; p<0.001)] and the use of traditional medicine [OR = 11.6 (95% CI = 3.4-39.8; p<0.001)] were variables that were independently associated to the lack of access to healthcare. The main reasons for not accessing healthcare were the pprioritization of traditional treatments (70.4%), and the failure to recognize the situation as being potentially severe (50.6%). Four deaths from complications arising from the snakebite were reported, and three of these were from communities on the banks of the Juruá River. Only one of these received medical assistance. We found an unexpectedly high underreporting of snakebite cases and associated deaths. Snakebite victims utilized three main different healing systems: 1) self-care using miscellaneous techniques; 2) official medical healthcare generally combined with traditional practices; and 3) self-care using traditional practices combined with Western medicines. To mitigate snakebite burden in the Brazilian Amazon, an innovative intervention that would optimize timely delivery of care, including antivenom distribution among existing community healthcare centers, is needed.
| S-EPMC8454940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice.MethodsThis international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries.Findings87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9-54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13-90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68-94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13-68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2-41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0-9% in high-income countries.InterpretationThese data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines.FundingNone.
| S-EPMC8476341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore access to primary healthcare and drug therapy by refugee children in the East Midlands region of England.DesignInterviews with refugees with children and a control group of British parents with children.SettingEast Midlands region of England.Participants50 refugees with children and a control group of 50 parents with children.Main outcome measuresNumber of medicines used by children in the last month and the past 6?months. Health of parents and children. Registration with a general practitioner (GP).ResultsAll families in both groups were registered with a GP. There was no difference in the number of children in the two groups experiencing illnesses .In the last month, 30 refugee children received 60 medicines and 31 control children 63 medicines. In the past 6?months, 48 refugee children received 108 medicines and 43 control children 96 medicines. There was no difference between the two groups of children in relation to the likelihood of receiving any medicines in either the last month (P=0.839) or the past 6?months (p=0.81). Children in the refugee group were more likely to receive prescribed medicines for the last month (p=0.008) and the past 6?months (p<0.001). They were also less likely to receive over the counter (OTC) medicines in the past 6?months (p=0.009).ConclusionsThe refugee children in this study in the East Midlands had access to primary healthcare, medicines and a family doctor. They were more likely to receive prescribed medicines and less likely to receive OTC medicines, especially paracetamol.
| S-EPMC4275676 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAround the world government agencies responsible for the selection and reimbursement of prescribed medicines and other health technologies are considering how best to bring community preferences into their decision making. In particular, community views about the distribution or equity of funding across the population. These official committees and agencies often have access to the best available and latest evidence on clinical effectiveness, safety and cost from large clinical trials and population-based studies. All too often they do not have access to high quality evidence about community views. We therefore, conducted a large and representative population-based survey in Australia to determine what community members think about the factors that do and should influence government spending on prescribed medicines.MethodsA choice-based survey was designed to elicit the importance of individual criteria when considering the equity of government spending on prescribed medicines. A representative sample of 3080 adult Australians completed the survey by allocating a hypothetical budget to different combinations of money spent on two patient populations. Societal preferences were inferred from absolute majority responses i.e. populations with more than 50% of respondents' allocation for a particular allocation criterion.ResultsThis study shows that, all else being equal, severity of disease, diseases for which there is no alternative treatment available on the government formulary, diseases that affect patients who are not financially well off, and life-style unrelated diseases are supported by the public as resource allocation criteria. Where 'all else is not equal', participants allocated more resources to the patient population that gained considerable improvement in health and fewer resources to those that gained little improvement in health. This result held under all scenarios except for 'end-of-life treatments'. Responses to cost (and corresponding number of patients treated) trade-off scenarios indicated a significant reduction in the proportion of respondents choosing to divide resources equally and a shift in preference towards devoting resources to the population that were more costly to treat for all criteria with the exception of severity of disease.ConclusionsThe general public have clear views on what's fair in terms of government spending on prescribed medicines. In addition to supporting the application of the 'rule of rescue', important considerations for government spending included the severity of disease being treated, diseases for which there is no alternative treatment available on the government formulary, diseases that affect patients who are not financially well off and life-style unrelated diseases. This study shows that the general public are willing to share their views on what constitutes an equitable allocation of the government's drug budget. The challenge remains to how best to consider those views alongside clinical and economic considerations.
| S-EPMC5332102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe improper disposal of unused medicines is a worldwide concern because of its impact on the environment, economy, and health. This study aims to describe the disposal practice of unused medicine and identify factors associated with unused medicines in Malaysia.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, face to face interview-based survey using a structured questionnaire. We used a convenience sampling method to recruit participants from Kuala Lumpur and Selangor in Malaysia.ResultsWe interviewed 1184 participants, and the response rate was 96%. Out of the total respondents, 995 (84%) reported having unused medicines. About a quarter of respondents kept unused medicines in the cabinet, and another quarter disposed of them into the trash or toilet. Only half of the respondent who used medicines for chronic illnesses had unused medicines compared to about 90% of respondents who used medicines for acute illnesses. The main reason for having unused medicines among those who used medicines for chronic illness was non-adherence (69%, p < 0.05). Only 27% of these respondents returned unused medicines under the "Medicine Return Programme (MRP)". The other group who used medicines for acute illnesses had unused medicines because their health conditions improved. Thus, most of the unused medicines will eventually end up in household waste. A multivariate logistic regression analysis identified respondents who used medicines for acute illnesses as the strongest predictor of having unused medicines (Odds Ratio (OR) = 29.8; p < 0.001), followed by those who pay for their medicines (OR = 6.0; p < 0.001) and those who were willing to participate the Medicine Return Programme (OR = 2.5; p = 0.009).ConclusionThe prevalence of unused medicines and their improper disposal were high in Malaysia. Unused medicines are associated with people who use medicines for acute illnesses, pay for their medication, and are willing to participate in an MRP. Rationale prescription and optimal dispensing practice, together with a broader MRP facilities coverage, could reduce unused medicine possession.
| S-EPMC8447783 | biostudies-literature