Explore the vast range of titles available.

WHO and Health Action International (HAI) have developed a standardised method for surveying medicine prices, availability, affordability, and price components in low-income and middle-income countries. Here, we present a secondary analysis of medicine availability in 45 national and subnational surveys done using the WHO/HAI methodology. Data from 45 WHO/HAI surveys in 36 countries were adjusted for inflation or deflation and purchasing power parity. International reference prices from open international procurements for generic products were used as comparators. Results are presented for 15 medicines included in at least 80% of surveys and four individual medicines. Average public sector availability of generic medicines ranged from 29·4% to 54·4% across WHO regions. Median government procurement prices for 15 generic medicines were 1·11 times corresponding international reference prices, although purchasing efficiency ranged from 0·09 to 5·37 times international reference prices. Low procurement prices did not always translate into low patient prices. Private sector patients paid 9–25 times international reference prices for lowest-priced generic products and over 20 times international reference prices for originator products across WHO regions. Treatments for acute and chronic illness were largely unaffordable in many countries. In the private sector, wholesale mark-ups ranged from 2% to 380%, whereas retail mark-ups ranged from 10% to 552%. In countries where value added tax was applied to medicines, the amount charged varied from 4% to 15%. Overall, public and private sector prices for originator and generic medicines were substantially higher than would be expected if purchasing and distribution were efficient and mark-ups were reasonable. Policy options such as promoting generic medicines and alternative financing mechanisms are needed to increase availability, reduce prices, and improve affordability. None.

Objective To assess the impact of a pay for performance incentive on quality of care and outcomes among UK patients with hypertension in primary care.Design Interrupted time series.Setting The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, United Kingdom.Participants 470 725 patients with hypertension diagnosed between January 2000 and August 2007.Intervention The UK pay for performance incentive (the Quality and Outcomes Framework), which was implemented in April 2004 and included specific targets for general practitioners to show high quality care for patients with hypertension (and other diseases).Main outcome measures Centiles of systolic and diastolic blood pressures over time, rates of blood pressure monitoring, blood pressure control, and treatment intensity at monthly intervals for baseline (48 months) and 36 months after the implementation of pay for performance. Cumulative incidence of major hypertension related outcomes and all cause mortality for subgroups of newly treated (treatment started six months before pay for performance) and treatment experienced (started treatment in year before January 2001) patients to examine different stages of illness.Results After accounting for secular trends, no changes in blood pressure monitoring (level change 0.85, 95% confidence interval −3.04 to 4.74, P=0.669 and trend change −0.01, −0.24 to 0.21, P=0.615), control (−1.19, −2.06 to 1.09, P=0.109 and −0.01, −0.06 to 0.03, P=0.569), or treatment intensity (0.67, −1.27 to 2.81, P=0.412 and 0.02, −0.23 to 0.19, P=0.706) were attributable to pay for performance. Pay for performance had no effect on the cumulative incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, heart failure, or all cause mortality in both treatment experienced and newly treated subgroups.Conclusions Good quality of care for hypertension was stable or improving before pay for performance was introduced. Pay for performance had no discernible effects on processes of care or on hypertension related clinical outcomes. Generous financial incentives, as designed in the UK pay for performance policy, may not be sufficient to improve quality of care and outcomes for hypertension and other common chronic conditions.

Abstract Objectives To quantify the influence of physicians' experiences of adverse events in patients with atrial fibrillation who were taking warfarin. Design Population based, matched pair before and after analysis. Setting Database study in Ontario, Canada. Participants The physicians of patients with atrial fibrillation admitted to hospital for adverse events (major haemorrhage while taking warfarin and thromboembolic strokes while not taking warfarin). Pairs of other patients with atrial fibrillation treated by the same physicians were selected. Main outcome measures Odds of receiving warfarin by matched pairs of a given physician's patients (one treated after and one treated before the event) were compared, with adjustment for stroke and bleeding risk factors that might also influence warfarin use. The odds of prescriptions for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor before and after the event was assessed as a neutral control. Results For the 530 physicians who had a patient with an adverse bleeding event (exposure) and who treated other patients with atrial fibrillation during the 90 days before and the 90 days after the exposure, the odds of prescribing warfarin was 21% lower for patients after the exposure (adjusted odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.00). Greater reductions in warfarin prescribing were found in analyses with patients for whom more time had elapsed between the physician's exposure and the patient's treatment. There were no significant changes in warfarin prescribing after a physician had a patient who had a stroke while not on warfarin or in the prescribing of ACE inhibitors by physicians who had patients with either bleeding events or strokes. Conclusions A physician's experience with bleeding events associated with warfarin can influence prescribing warfarin. Adverse events that are possibly associated with underuse of warfarin may not affect subsequent prescribing.

Inappropriate prescribing reduces the quality of medical care and leads to a waste of resources. To address these problems, a variety of educational and administrative approaches to improve prescribing have been tried. This article reviews the experiences of the last decade in order to identify which interventions have proven effective in developing countries, and suggests a range of policy options for health planners and managers. Considering the magnitude of resources that are wasted on inappropriately used drugs, many promising interventions are relatively inexpensive. Simple methods are available to monitor drug use in a standardized way and to identify inefficiencies. Intervention approaches that have proved effective in some settings are: standard treatment guidelines; essential drugs lists; pharmacy and therapeutics committees; problem-based basic professional training; and targeted in-service training of health workers. Some other interventions, such as training of drug sellers, education based on group processes and public education, need further testing, but should be supported. Several simplistic approaches have proven ineffective, such as disseminating prescribing information or clinical guidelines in written form only. Two issues that will require a long-term strategic approach are improving prescribing in the private sector and monitoring the impacts of health sector reform. Sufficient evidence is now available to persuade policy-makers that it is possible to promote rational drug use. If such effective strategies are followed, the quality of health care can be improved and drug expenditures reduced.

Increasing efforts are being made to improve drug-use practices and prescribing behaviour in developing countries. An essential tool for such work is an objective and standard method of assessment. We present here a set of drug-use indicators produced and tested in twelve developing countries. We describe practical applications, which include the use of indicators to increase awareness among prescribers in Malawi and Bangladesh, to identify priorities for action (eg, polypharmacy in Indonesia and Nigeria, overuse of injections in Uganda, Sudan, and Nigeria, and low percentage of patients who understood the dosage schedule in Malawi), and to quantify the impact of interventions in Yemen, Uganda, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.

Background The current health care reform in China launched in 2009 tackles the problem of access to appropriate medicines for its 1.3 billion people by focusing on providing essential medicines to all. To provide evidence for the reform process, we investigated the manufacturing, purchasing, and prescribing of essential medicines in two provinces. Methods We conducted surveys in 2007 of all manufacturers (n = 253) and of 59 purposively selected retail and 63 hospital pharmacies in Shandong and Gansu provinces to assess production and supply of products on the 2004 National Essential Medicines List (NEML), as well as factors underlying decision making about production and supply. We also reviewed prescriptions (n = 5456) in health facilities to calculate standard indicators of appropriate medicines use. Results Overall, manufacturers in Shandong and Gansu produced only 62% and 50%, respectively, of the essential medicines they were licensed to produce. Of a randomly selected 10% of NEML products, retail pharmacies stocked up to 60% of Western products. Median availability in hospital pharmacies ranged from 19% to 69%. Manufacturer and retail pharmacy managers based decisions on medicines production and stocking on economic considerations, while hospital pharmacy managers cited clinical need. Between 64% and 86% of prescriptions contained an essential medicine. However, overprescribing of antibiotics (34%-77% of prescriptions) and injectables (22%-61%) for adult non-infectious outpatient consultations was common. Conclusions We found that manufacturers, retail pharmacies, and hospital pharmacies paid limited attention to China's 2004 NEML in their decisions to manufacture, purchase, and stock essential medicines. We also found that prescribing of essential medicines was frequently inappropriate. These results should inform strategies to improve affordable access to essential medicines under the current health care reform.

Objective. To pilot-test the feasibility and preliminary effect of a community health worker (CHW) intervention to reduce hospital readmissions. Design. Patient-level randomized quality improvement intervention. Setting. An academic medical center serving a predominantly low-income population in the Boston, Massachusetts area and 10 affiliated primary care practices. Participants. Medical service patients with an in-network primary care physician who were discharged to home (n = 423) and had one of five risk factors for readmission within 30 days. Intervention. Inpatient introductory visit and weekly post-discharge telephonic support for 4 weeks to assist patient in coordinating medical visits, obtaining and using medications, and in self-management. Main Outcome Measures. Number of completed CHW contacts; CHW-reported barriers and facilitators to assisting patients; primary care, emergency department and inpatient care use. Results. Roughly 70% of patients received at least one post-discharge CHW call; only 38% of patients received at least four calls as intended. Hospital readmission rates were lower among CHW patients (15.4%) compared with usual care (17.9%); the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion. Under performance-based payment systems, identifying cost-effective solutions for reducing hospital readmissions will be crucial to the economic survival of all hospitals, especially safety-net systems. This pilot study suggests that with appropriate supportive infrastructure, hospital-based CHWs may represent a feasible strategy for improving transitional care among vulnerable populations. An ongoing, randomized, controlled trial of a CHW intervention, developed according to the lessons of this pilot, will provide further insight into the utility of this approach to reducing readmissions.

The news media are an important source of information about health and medical therapies, 1 and there is widespread interest in the quality of reporting. 2 – 10 Previous studies have identified inaccurate coverage of published scientific papers, 11 , 12 overstatement of adverse effects or risks, 13 , 14 and evidence of sensationalism. 15 , 16 The media can also have a positive public health role, as they did in communicating simple warnings about the connection between Reye's syndrome and the use of aspirin in children. 17 Physicians, consumers, and third-party payers may be more enthusiastic about long-term preventive treatments when benefits are stated as relative, rather than absolute, . . .

Objective: To assess trends in the use of self-report measures in research on adherence to practice guidelines since 1980, and to determine the impact of response bias on the validity of self-reports as measures of quality of care. Methods: We conducted a MEDLINE search using defined search terms for the period 1980 to 1996. Included studies evaluated the adherence of (e.g. medical records), we compared self-reported and objective adherence rates (measured as per cent adherence). Evidence or response bias was defined as self-reported adherence significantly exceeding the objective measure at the 5% level. Results: We identified 326 studies of guideline adherence. The use of self-report measures of adherence increased from 18% of studies in 1980 to 41% of studies in 1985. Of the 10 studies that used both self-report and objective measurers, eight supported the existence of response bias in all self-reported measures. In 87% of 37 comparisons, self-reported adherence rates exceeded the objective rates, resulting in a median over-estimation of adherence of 27% (absolute difference). Conclusions: Although self-reports may provide information regarding clinicians' knowledge of guideline recommendations, they are subject to bias and should not be used as the sole measure of guideline adherence. Key words: clinical competence, physician practice patterns, practice guidelines, process assessment, quality assurance, quality of care measurement

To assess the effects of facility-based interventions using existing resources to improve overall patient attendance and adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) at ART-providing facilities in Uganda. This was an interventional study which tracked attendance and treatment adherence of two distinct cohorts: experienced patients who had been on treatment for at least 12 months prior to the intervention and patients newly initiated on ART before or during the intervention. The interventions included instituting appointment system, fast-tracking, and giving longer prescriptions to experienced stable patients. Mixed-effects models were used to examine intervention effects on the experienced patients, while Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the intervention effects on time until newly treated patients experienced gaps in medication availability. In all, 1481 patients' files were selected for follow-up from six facilities - 720 into the experienced cohort, and 761 into the newly treated cohort. Among patients in the experienced cohort, the interventions were associated with a significant reduction from 24.4 to 20.3% of missed appointments (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59-0.77); a significant decrease from 20.2 to 18.4% in the medication gaps of three or more days (AOR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.60-0.79); and a significant increase from 4.3 to 9.3% in the proportion of patients receiving more than 30 days of dispensed medication (AOR: 2.35; 95% CI: 1.91-2.89). Among newly treated patients, the interventions were associated with significant reductions of 44% (adjusted hazard rate (AHR): 0.56, 95% CI: 0.42-0.74) and 38% (AHR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.45-0.85) in the hazards of experiencing a medication gap of 7 and 14 days or more, respectively. Patients' adherence was improved with low-cost and easily implemented interventions using existing health facilities' resources. We recommend that such interventions be considered for scale-up at national levels as measures to improve clinic attendance and ART adherence among patients in Uganda and other low-resource settings in sub-Saharan Africa.