https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8295-8535
Figures
Abstract
Despite their potential to prevent or delay the onset and progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD), medicines for CVD remain unavailable and unaffordable to many in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically reviewed the literature to identify factors associated with availability and affordability of CVD medicines in LMICs. A protocol for this study was registered on the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews (CRD42019135393). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Global Health, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit, Social Policy and Practice, and Africa Wide Information for studies analyzing factors associated with the presence of medicines (availability) or the price of these medicines as it relates to ability to pay (affordability) in LMICs. We performed a narrative synthesis of the results using an access to medicines framework that examines influences at different levels of the health system. We did not conduct a meta-analysis because of the differences in analytic approaches and outcome measures in different studies. The search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Of 43 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 41 were cross-sectional. Availability and affordability were defined and measured in different ways. A range of factors such as sociodemographic characteristics, facility tier, presence of medicines on national essential medicine lists, and international subsidy programs were examined. The studies had variable quality and findings were often inconsistent. We find gaps in the literature on factors associated with availability and affordability of CVD medicines, particularly at the health program level. We conclude that there is a need for experimental and quasi-experimental studies that could identify causal factors and effective responses. Such studies would help further our understanding of how complex multifactorial influences impact these outcomes, which could inform policy decisions. Along with this, greater standardization of definitions and measurement approaches of availability and affordability are needed to allow for more effective comparisons.
Citation: Lotfizadeh A, Palafox B, Takallou A, Balabanova D, McKee M, Murphy A (2022) Factors associated with the availability and affordability of essential cardiovascular disease medicines in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. PLOS Glob Public Health 2(3): e0000072. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000072
Editor: Palash Chandra Banik, Bangladesh University of Health Sciences, BANGLADESH
Received: July 20, 2021; Accepted: October 24, 2021; Published: March 23, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Lotfizadeh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data is presented within the manuscript. Extracted data is included as supplementary material.
Funding: AM was supported by a Wellcome Trust Research Fellowship (number 104349/Z/14/Z). BP, DB and MM were supported by a grant under the Wellcome Trust/Newton Fund-MRC Humanities & Social Science Collaborative Award scheme (200346/Z/15/Z). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: AL was a visiting research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine from 2018–2019. The authors have no other competing interests to declare.
Introduction
Control of blood pressure and lipid levels by pharmacotherapy is a core element of primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Antihypertensive drugs are known to reduce the incidence of cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases [1], as are statins [2] and antiplatelet agents [3]. Despite the known efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these medicines [4], their use remains far from optimal, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where 80% percent of CVD-related mortality occurs [5]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has advocated for a target goal of 50% of eligible people receiving medicines for CVD [6]. Yet, in LMICs, fewer than 30% with hypertension receive treatment and less than 8% achieve blood pressure control [7]. In one study of only low-income countries, fewer than 10% of those with a history of coronary heart disease or ischemic stroke received treatment with antiplatelet drugs or lipid-lowering agents, contrary to international guidelines [8].
One reason for this treatment gap is poor access to medicines. Access has multiple dimensions but two that are commonly explored are availability and affordability. A recommended definition of availability compares the quantity of a medicine required in relation to its presence at health facilities. Affordability is captured by a medicine’s price relative to an individual or household’s ability to pay [9]. Research in LMICs shows that the availability and affordability of CVD drugs are associated with greater odds of patients using them and with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes [10].
Although the WHO recommends at least 80% medicine availability for CVD [6], this target is not being met in LMICs. Many patients with hypertension require combination therapy but only 13% of communities in low-income countries live in areas where all four main classes of antihypertensives are available and only 30% of households can afford them [11]. While many studies describe the scale of the problem, fewer seek to explain the multitude of factors involved and their interrelationships. Our objective is to systematically review the literature to identify such factors in LMIC to inform appropriate policy responses and future research.
Materials and methods
We conducted a systematic review of the literature on factors associated with availability and affordability of medicines for CVD in LMICs. The protocol for this review was registered and published on the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews (CRD42019135393). Findings are reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
We included published studies in any language that reported original data and analyzed interventions or factors associated with availability and/or affordability of CVD medicines in countries defined as low- or middle-income according to the 2021 World Bank classification. We included quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method comparative studies, using experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational designs. We included any measure of availability providing information on the physical presence of medicines at health facilities or home. For affordability, we included studies that considered the price of a medicine incurred by an individual or household in relation to their ability to pay [12]. Studies that only provided information on the price of medicines were excluded. Studies that examined an individual or household’s ability to obtain medicines for free (as opposed to having to pay for medicines) were included, because free medicines are, by definition, more affordable than medicines at any price [13]. We included studies that directly measured availability and/or affordability, those that used information from other surveys, and those that asked respondents to report on availability and/or affordability.
Studies with data from more than one country were included if the majority were LMICs. We focused on CVD medicines in the following three categories: antihypertensive agents, platelet aggregation inhibitors, and lipid-lowering agents. Studies that reported data on a basket of medicines were included if CVD medicines were a part of that basket.
Search strategy.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit, Social Policy and Practice, and Africa Wide Information for studies in any language published after the year 2000. We also conducted a grey literature search using the website of the Institute of Development Studies, the WHO Repository, the World Bank Repository, and Google. We restricted our search to publications from the year 2000 onward because of a paucity of health systems literature prior to this date. We performed our initial search in June 2020 and updated the search in July 2021. The references of all included records were manually reviewed. The search strategy was developed in collaboration with a librarian at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine with expertise in systematic review methodology. The search terms were subsequently peer-reviewed by another information specialist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine not involved in developing the search strategy. More details on the search strategy are presented in Table 1 and the complete search terms can be found in Appendix 1 (S1 Table). Non-communicable disease (NCD) medicines were included in our search because an initial scoping review revealed papers that examined availability and/or affordability of a basket of NCD medicines, including CVD drugs.
The results were screened independently by two reviewers at the title/abstract level and studies not meeting inclusion criteria were excluded. Both reviewers subsequently screened full texts of retained articles independently, excluding those that did not meet inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer and a consensus was reached.
Data extraction
The following information was extracted from all studies: language, study implementation year, country, study design, study setting, sample size, survey method used, factors analyzed, methodology, medicines studied, outcome measure, definition of availability and/or affordability, how availability and/or affordability was quantified, and study findings including the statistical parameters used (e.g. odds ratios, proportions, chi-squared values, p-values, and confidence intervals). Studies that were not in English were translated using Google Translate. Where translations were not clear, we used a dictionary and consulted colleagues with knowledge of the language.
Risk of bias assessment
We assessed quality for observational studies using a method previously published by Maimaris [14], which examines three domains: selection bias, information bias (differential and non-differential misclassification), and confounding, thereby providing more precise information on studies than is done by some other instruments whose primary purpose is to determine whether to include a study or not. To evaluate non-differential misclassification, we assessed the reliability of the measures used for availability and affordability. The risk of bias tool for observational studies is presented in Appendix 2 (S2 Table). For randomized controlled trials, the revised Cochrane tool was used [15]. This tool measures bias in the following domains: randomization, timing of identification/recruitment in relation to timing of randomization, deviations in intended interventions, missing outcome data, outcome measurements, and selection of the reported results. Two reviewers independently performed risk of bias assessment and resolved discrepancies with discussion.
Conceptual framework and narrative synthesis
We organized our findings according to a framework of health systems constraints adapted to access to medicines in LMICs [16]. This framework proposes different levels of the health system as follows: 1) individuals, households, and communities, 2) health service delivery, 3) health sector (or program), 4) national context (public policies cutting across sectors), 5) international context. We considered sociodemographic factors and geographic location at level 1. At level 2, we included characteristics of a health facility or service delivery arrangements at that facility. At the health sector level, we examined country or region-wide health programs or policies. At the national context, policies extending beyond the health sector were examined. At level 5, international programs or arrangements that were related to the availability or affordability of medicines were examined. We coded factors associated with availability and affordability into the different levels and performed a narrative synthesis of the data.
Results
The results of the screening process are reported in the PRISMA flowchart (Fig 1). The initial search yielded 32,352 results and an additional 4,077 were retrieved from the updated search, resulting in 36,429 titles. Of these, 9,839 were duplicates, leaving 26,590 citations. Title and abstract screening resulted in 334 studies, of which 327 were retrieved for full-text screening. The remaining seven studies could not be accessed because they were in journals to which our library and no affiliated libraries subscribe. Thirty-five studies met inclusion criteria and an additional eight were included through a manual search of the references.
Flowchart of the selection and screening process of studies on availability and affordability of CVD medicines.
Study characteristics
Of the included studies, 40 were in English [17–56], two were in Spanish [57, 58], and one was in Portuguese [59]. Thirty-four studies focused on availability [17, 18, 20–24, 26–36, 38, 40–42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50–54, 56, 58, 59], seven on affordability [19, 25, 37, 39, 43, 46, 55], and two on both [49, 57]. Risk of bias assessment revealed heterogeneity in the quality of the included studies. Fifteen of the cross-sectional studies had one or more domains with high risk of bias [23, 24, 27, 32, 35, 37, 43, 49–55, 57] while another seven had unclear risk of bias in at least one domain [20, 22, 30, 44, 53, 54, 59]. Detailed characteristics of included studies and the results of risk of bias assessments are described in Table 2. Seven of the included studies used the WHO Health Action International survey [20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 31, 53, 56] and six used the Service Availability and Readiness Assessment tool to measure medicine availability [17, 18, 24, 27, 29, 38, 52]. Definitions and quantification approaches used to measure availability and affordability are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Factors associated with availability
Individual, household, and community level.
Sociodemographic characteristics associated with medicine availability were assessed in four studies, with inconsistent findings [41, 45, 47, 49]. Age was examined in two and was only associated with greater availability in three of five countries in one of the studies [45, 47]. Associations between socioeconomic status and availability varied in the same five-country study, but two other studies found positive associations [41, 45, 47]. Education was also positively associated with availability in one of two studies but not in the other [45, 47]. There was no association between sex and availability of medicines in the three studies looking at this variable [45, 47, 49]. At the community level, seven studies compared medicine availability in urban and rural settings [21, 23, 34, 36, 47, 52, 58], with three reporting no differences [36, 47, 58]. In two studies from Zambia and Kenya that looked at different CVD medicine classes separately, only calcium channel blockers and hydrochlorothiazide had significantly lower availability in rural facilities, respectively [23, 34].
Service delivery level.
Twenty one studies examined service delivery level arrangements [17, 18, 21–23, 27–29, 31–33, 35, 36, 38, 42, 47, 51, 53, 56, 58, 59]. Thirteen of these compared availability at private and public facilities with mixed results [18, 21–23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 47, 51, 53, 56]. Additionally, 11 studies looked at the relationship between facility tier and medicine availability [17, 18, 21, 27, 29, 33, 36, 38, 42, 58, 59]. In seven studies from Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria, China, and Brazil, higher tier facilities staffed by medical doctors or providing a wider range of services were significantly more likely to have antihypertensive medicines or a basket of medicines available [18, 21, 29, 33, 36, 42, 59]. Among these, three also looked at correlations between availability and the level of amenities at a facility such as equipment, a pharmacy refrigerator, or solar panels. The presence of such amenities was associated with greater availability of medicines in all three studies [18, 36, 59]. The relationship between service integration and medicine availability was examined in two studies. In Uganda, facilities providing HIV counseling and testing had greater availability of NCD medicines while those offering HIV care had lower availability [18]. In Brazil, primary healthcare units dispensing psychotropic drugs had 3.16 (95% CI: 2.85–3.51) times greater odds of having essential medicines available [59].
Health sector (program) level.
Eight studies examined health sector level arrangements [20, 26, 28, 35, 42, 44, 54, 56]. Three studies from Brazil, China, and Nigeria all point to an association between facility revenues and medicine availability [26, 35, 44]. For example, in China, the introduction of a policy that eliminated facility mark-ups on drug prices (and thus decreased revenue) was associated with a decrease in mean availability of lowest-priced generics from 25.5% to 20.5% (p < 0.0001) [26]. In a fourth study, from Indonesia, implementation of a national policy that included a shift from fee-for-service to more limited reimbursements based on the type of diagnosis was associated with variable results for different types of antihypertensive agents. This policy also included a requirement that medicines be ordered from the national formulary, however, the study provided little detail on the methodology employed [54].
The relationship between the presence of drugs on essential medicine lists and availability was examined in four studies [20, 26, 28, 56]. In China, the introduction of a provincial essential medicine list was associated with decreases in medicine availability [26]. In Bangladesh, availability of medicines was 50.3% for those on the national essential medicine list and 57% for those not on the list (p > 0.05) [28]. But in a survey of 23 LMICs, median availability of generic medicines on national lists was significantly greater [20]. In Pakistan as well, health facility availability of CVD medicines on the essential medicine list was significantly greater than those not on the list [56].
National and international levels.
We found no studies assessing the relationship between national policies from outside the health sector and availability. In terms of international factors, one cluster-randomized controlled trial that evaluated a Novartis-sponsored program providing medicines for NCDs in Kenya at $1 per treatment per month found increased availability of amlodipine–but not other CVD medicines–at health facilities [40].
Factors associated with affordability
Individual, household, and community level.
Five studies examined sociodemographic factors associated with affordability with four examining socioeconomic status [39, 43, 46, 49, 55]. Two from Brazil revealed a negative association between socioeconomic status and affordability [43, 46], while a third study showed no association [55]. Conversely, a study from Russia revealed a positive association [39].
Service delivery level.
Three studies examined correlations between affordability and service delivery level indicators [19, 55, 57]. In Kenya, public facilities were more likely to provide free NCD medicines than private facilities (47% v 9%, p<0.0001) [19]. In Mexico, medicines were obtained for free by 62% of those visiting pharmacies that were operated by the state and by 70% of those visiting outsourced pharmacies (p < 0.01) [57]. In Brazil, medicines were more affordable for individuals who reported primarily using public health facilities as part of the Sistemo Unico de Saude to procure medicines than those who used private pharmacies. The Sistemo Unico de Saude is a national program that aims to increase access to medicines by providing certain medications free of charge [55].
Health sector (program) level.
Four studies examined the association between affordability and the presence of health insurance [39, 43, 46, 55]. In Brazil, not having a health insurance plan was associated with greater medicine affordability [43, 46, 55]. An interrupted time series analysis from Brazil examining a policy removing copayments for antihypertensives found significant reductions in mean out-of-pocket expenditures after the policy was implemented [25].
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of health system factors associated with availability and affordability of CVD medicines in LMICs. Our findings highlight significant gaps in evidence and heterogeneity in results as well as variable quality of existing studies. While certain factors seemed consistently associated with availability, findings regarding other factors were inconsistent.
There are a number of possible reasons for these inconsistencies. First, most studies were cross-sectional and subject to potential confounding, precluding establishment of causal relationships. Intervention studies are needed but the feasibility of implementing them will depend on context, so they should be accompanied by qualitative policy analyses.
Second, availability and affordability of medicines are unlikely to be affected by a single factor. Instead, a multitude of factors must be aligned in complex relationships at different health systems levels [16]. This was evident in several studies, including the sole cluster-randomized trial included, where subsidies from Novartis had little effect on medicine availability in Kenya [40]. This differs from a similar intervention involving subsidies for artemisinin-based combination therapy in sub-Saharan Africa, which achieved notable increases in medicine availability [60]. As the authors of the first study acknowledge, subsidization is only one element in a complex system which also has to account for factors such as physician, pharmacist, and patient awareness of specific medicines, procurement, delivery mechanisms, and inclusion in clinical practice guidelines. This may also explain why the presence of medicines on national essential medicine lists did not translate to greater availability in all included studies. Different countries may go about deciding what medicines to include on these lists differently [20]. It may be that in some contexts, drugs on essential medicine lists are not included in clinical guidelines or are less accepted by prescribers and patients. Other factors may also influence whether medicines on essential lists are more available. One included study demonstrated an inverse relationship between country-income level and availability of medicines on these lists [20]. The authors posit that in countries with fewer resources, essential medicine lists drive prioritization. Interestingly, in two studies we identified from Pakistan [56] and Bangladesh [28], availability of medicines positively correlated with their presence on essential lists only in Pakistan, which has the lower national income level of the two [61]. Similarly, medicines on essential lists tend to be more available at public facilities [20]. Yet, the studies we included analyzed a heterogeneous sample of public and private facilities as well as different tier facilities together. This may explain some of the inconsistencies observed. In a study from China [26], where implementation of an essential medicine list was associated with lower availability, the policy was accompanied by elimination of mark-ups on drug prices at health facilities, which may have reduced revenues for medicine procurement.
We also noted inconsistencies and counterintuitive findings for affordability. In Brazil, the absence of health insurance was associated with greater affordability of medicines [43, 46, 55]. Individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who lack health insurance rely more heavily on Brazilian public health programs like the Sistema Unico de Saude, which provide medicines for free particularly for NCDs. Those with private insurance, on the other hand, are more likely to procure medicines through the private sector where they will be required to pay [62]. Future research must take a more holistic and dynamic approach, looking at how individual correlates of inadequate access are influenced by the characteristics of the health systems in which they operate.
A third possible reason for inconsistent findings is the heterogeneity in measures of availability and affordability. For example, some studies on availability assess the percentage of facilities where a drug is available while others report the proportion of drugs available from a list of medicines. Employing even slightly different measures can yield widely disparate estimates in the same country [63]. This problem is compounded by the fact that most current measures are binary. Many of the included studies considered a medicine available if it was present on the day of the survey regardless of quantity, expiry date, or reliability of supply.
A consistent and comprehensive definition of affordability is also needed. In all but one study, affordability was either ascertained subjectively from respondents or by measuring the ability to obtain medicines for free, which does not fully encapsulate the degree to which medicines are unaffordable for those who have to pay. Many measures of affordability, including those employed by the studies included here, rely on a single measure at one point in time. These measures may not provide a full picture of the long-term financial burden that purchasing medications for chronic conditions places on families [64]. Other metrics of affordability have been described in the literature, however, no study meeting our inclusion criteria used such definitions. For example, the WHO Health Action International Survey measures affordability as the number of days of wages the lowest-paid government worker has to spend on medicines [65]. Many of these approaches involve making arbitrary judgments on thresholds for affordability. Doing so without taking into account households’ disposable income risks overestimating true affordability [13]. The downside of more comprehensive definitions is challenges in measurement. Yet, without them, interventions may be deemed effective if they meet certain predetermined benchmarks, even if they do not truly reflect how available or affordable medicines are for those who need them.
An important finding from our study is the paucity of factors studied that could influence availability and affordability. For example, no study examined the role of corruption, although this has been shown to be negatively associated with access to HIV antiretroviral therapy [66]. Nor were supply chain factors investigated, despite several studies showing how relevant interventions affected availability of medicines for other diseases [67, 68]. Similarly, intellectual property provisions may have implications on availability and affordability of CVD medicines. Different studies have shown that the vast majority of medicines on the WHO Essential Medicine List are not under patent protection [69, 70]. These findings, coupled with extensive evidence that medicines on the essential medicine list remain unavailable and unaffordable in most LMICs, imply that patent provisions are unlikely to be the sole contributor to non-availability and affordability. Nevertheless, patents on newer therapeutics or fixed-dose combination therapies for CVD that are not on essential medicine lists may impact their availability and affordability and warrant further investigation [71].
Our study has some limitations. We restricted our search to factors associated with availability and affordability but did not examine other parameters of access. Though beyond the scope of this review, aspects such as acceptability are also important in ensuring that those who need CVD medicines can receive them [9]. Furthermore, while we did not restrict our search based on language, studies in languages other than English may not be captured in the databases used. Finally, availability and affordability are conceptualized in a multitude of ways. Some studies on this topic may have used terms that were missed by our search terms.
Conclusion
Evidence concerning factors that influence the availability or affordability of CVD medicines is limited. The majority of studies are observational and while they have identified a number of potential associations, they cannot establish causality. Factors at different levels of the health system likely act together in a multifactorial way to influence availability and affordability of CVD medicines as part of complex health systems. Future research involving uniform definitions and measurement approaches is needed with a particular focus on experimental and quasi-experimental methods that provide insight into causal mechanisms.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Complete search terms and search strategy for Medline search.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000072.s002
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Risk of bias tool for observational studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000072.s003
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We thank Jane Falconer from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library for her expertise and support in developing the search strategy.
References
- 1. Messerli FH, Williams B, Ritz E. Essential hypertension. Lancet. 2007;370(9587):591–603. pmid:17707755
- 2. Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, Isles CG, Lorimer AR, MacFarlane PW, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(20):1301–7. pmid:7566020
- 3. Antithrombotic Trialists Collaboration. Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1849–60. pmid:19482214
- 4. Aminde LN, Takah NF, Zapata-Diomedi B, Veerman JL. Primary and secondary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018;16:22. pmid:29983644
- 5.
Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010 Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011 [cited 2020 Sept 14]. Available from: https://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report2010/en/.
- 6.
Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013–2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 [cited 2020 Sept 14]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/94384/9789241506236_eng.pdf?sequence=1.
- 7. Mills KT, Bundy JD, Kelly TN, Reed JE, Kearney PM, Reynolds K, et al. Global Disparities of Hypertension Prevalence and Control: A Systematic Analysis of Population-Based Studies From 90 Countries. Circulation. 2016;134(6):441–50. pmid:27502908
- 8. Yusuf S, Islam S, Chow CK, Rangarajan S, Dagenais G, Diaz R, et al. Use of secondary prevention drugs for cardiovascular disease in the community in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries (the PURE Study): a prospective epidemiological survey. Lancet. 2011;378(9798):1231–43. pmid:21872920
- 9. Wirtz VJ, Kaplan WA, Kwan GF, Laing RO. Access to Medications for Cardiovascular Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Circulation. 2016;133(21):2076–85. pmid:27217433
- 10. Chow CK, Nguyen TN, Marschner S, Diaz R, Rahman O, Avezum A, et al. Availability and affordability of medicines and cardiovascular outcomes in 21 high-income, middle-income and low-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(11). pmid:33148540
- 11. Attaei MW, Khatib R, McKee M, Lear S, Dagenais G, Igumbor EU, et al. Availability and affordability of blood pressure-lowering medicines and the effect on blood pressure control in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: an analysis of the PURE study data. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(9):e411–e9. pmid:29253412
- 12.
Embrey M. Chapter 1 Managing Access to Medicines and Health Technologies. Embrey M, Ryan M, editors. Arlington, VA: Management Sciences for Health; 2012.
- 13. Niens LM, Brouwer WB. Measuring the affordability of medicines: importance and challenges. Health Policy. 2013;112(1–2):45–52. pmid:23827263
- 14. Maimaris W, Paty J, Perel P, Legido-Quigley H, Balabanova D, Nieuwlaat R, et al. The influence of health systems on hypertension awareness, treatment, and control: a systematic literature review. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001490. pmid:23935461
- 15. Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. pmid:31462531
- 16. Bigdeli M, Jacobs B, Tomson G, Laing R, Ghaffar A, Dujardin B, et al. Access to medicines from a health system perspective. Health Policy Plan. 2013;28(7):692–704. pmid:23174879
- 17. Adinan J, Manongi R, Temu GA, Kapologwe N, Marandu A, Wajanga B, et al. Preparedness of health facilities in managing hypertension & diabetes mellitus in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania: a cross sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):537. pmid:31366384
- 18. Armstrong-Hough M, Kishore SP, Byakika S, Mutungi G, Nunez-Smith M, Schwartz JI. Disparities in availability of essential medicines to treat non-communicable diseases in Uganda: A Poisson analysis using the Service Availability and Readiness Assessment. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0192332. pmid:29420640
- 19. Ashigbie PG, Rockers PC, Laing RO, Cabral HJ, Onyango MA, Buleti JPL, et al. Availability and prices of medicines for non-communicable diseases at health facilities and retail drug outlets in Kenya: a cross-sectional survey in eight counties. BMJ Open. 2020;10(5):e035132. pmid:32414824
- 20. Bazargani YT, Ewen M, de Boer A, Leufkens HG, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK. Essential medicines are more available than other medicines around the globe. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87576. pmid:24533058
- 21. Bintabara D, Mpondo BCT. Preparedness of lower-level health facilities and the associated factors for the outpatient primary care of hypertension: Evidence from Tanzanian national survey. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0192942. pmid:29447231
- 22. Cameron A, Roubos I, Ewen M, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Leufkens HG, Laing RO. Differences in the availability of medicines for chronic and acute conditions in the public and private sectors of developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89(6):412–21. pmid:21673857
- 23.
Cepuch C. Availability of essential medicines for chronic disease vs. communicable disease in Kenya as an indicator of age-related inequities in access [Master’s Thesis]: University of the Western Cape; 2012.
- 24. Duong DB, Minh HV, Ngo LH, Ellner AL. Readiness, Availability and Utilization of Rural Vietnamese Health Facilities for Community Based Primary Care of Non-communicable Diseases: A CrossSectional Survey of 3 Provinces in Northern Vietnam. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(3):150–7. pmid:30980631
- 25. Emmerick ICM, Campos MR, da Silva RM, Chaves LA, Bertoldi AD, Ross-Degnan D, et al. Hypertension and diabetes treatment affordability and government expenditures following changes in patient cost sharing in the "Farmacia popular" program in Brazil: an interrupted time series study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):24. pmid:31914972
- 26. Fang Y, Wagner AK, Yang S, Jiang M, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D. Access to affordable medicines after health reform: evidence from two cross-sectional surveys in Shaanxi Province, western China. Lancet Glob Health. 2013;1(4):e227–37. pmid:25104348
- 27. Jigjidsuren A, Byambaa T, Altangerel E, Batbaatar S, Saw YM, Kariya T, et al. Free and universal access to primary healthcare in Mongolia: the service availability and readiness assessment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):129. pmid:30786897
- 28. Kasonde L, Tordrup D, Naheed A, Zeng W, Ahmed S, Babar ZU. Evaluating medicine prices, availability and affordability in Bangladesh using World Health Organisation and Health Action International methodology. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):383. pmid:31196078
- 29. Katende D, Mutungi G, Baisley K, Biraro S, Ikoona E, Peck R, et al. Readiness of Ugandan health services for the management of outpatients with chronic diseases. Trop Med Int Health. 2015;20(10):1385–95. pmid:26095069
- 30. Khanal S, Veerman L, Ewen M, Nissen L, Hollingworth S. Availability, Price, and Affordability of Essential Medicines to Manage Noncommunicable Diseases: A National Survey From Nepal. Inquiry. 2019;56:1–8.
- 31. Kibirige D, Atuhe D, Kampiire L, Kiggundu DS, Donggo P, Nabbaale J, et al. Access to medicines and diagnostic tests integral in the management of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases in Uganda: insights from the ACCODAD study. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):154. pmid:28836972
- 32. Minaei H, Peikanpour M, Yousefi N, Peymani P, Peiravian F, Shobeiri N, et al. Country Pharmaceutical Situation on Access, Quality, and Rational Use of Medicines: An Evidence from a middle-income country. Iran J Pharm Res. 2019;18(4):2191–203. pmid:32184884
- 33. Musinguzi G, Bastiaens H, Wanyenze RK, Mukose A, Van Geertruyden JP, Nuwaha F. Capacity of Health Facilities to Manage Hypertension in Mukono and Buikwe Districts in Uganda: Challenges and Recommendations. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0142312. pmid:26560131
- 34. Mutale W, Bosomprah S, Shankalala P, Mweemba O, Chilengi R, Kapambwe S, et al. Assessing capacity and readiness to manage NCDs in primary care setting: Gaps and opportunities based on adapted WHO PEN tool in Zambia. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0200994. pmid:30138318
- 35. Oliveira MA, Luiza VL, Tavares NU, Mengue SS, Arrais PS, Farias MR, et al. Access to medicines for chronic diseases in Brazil: a multidimensional approach. Rev Saude Publica. 2016;50(suppl 2):6s. pmid:27982382
- 36. Oyekale AS. Assessment of primary health care facilities’ service readiness in Nigeria. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):172. pmid:28249578
- 37. Paniz VM, Fassa AG, Facchini LA, Piccini RX, Tomasi E, Thume E, et al. Free access to hypertension and diabetes medicines among the elderly: a reality yet to be constructed. Cad Saude Publica. 2010;26(6):1163–74. pmid:20657981
- 38. Peck R, Mghamba J, Vanobberghen F, Kavishe B, Rugarabamu V, Smeeth L, et al. Preparedness of Tanzanian health facilities for outpatient primary care of hypertension and diabetes: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(5):e285–92. pmid:24818084
- 39. Perlman F, Balabanova D. Prescription for change: accessing medication in transitional Russia. Health Policy Plan. 2011;26(6):453–63. pmid:21199788
- 40. Rockers PC, Laing RO, Ashigbie PG, Onyango MA, Mukiira CK, Wirtz VJ. Effect of Novartis Access on availability and price of non-communicable disease medicines in Kenya: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(4):e492–e502. pmid:30799142
- 41. Rockers PC, Laing RO, Wirtz VJ. Equity in access to non-communicable disease medicines: a cross-sectional study in Kenya. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(3):e000828. pmid:29989082
- 42. Su M, Zhang Q, Bai X, Wu C, Li Y, Mossialos E, et al. Availability, cost, and prescription patterns of antihypertensive medications in primary health care in China: a nationwide cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2017;390(10112):2559–68. pmid:29102087
- 43. Tavares NU, Luiza VL, Oliveira MA, Costa KS, Mengue SS, Arrais PS, et al. Free access to medicines for the treatment of chronic diseases in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2016;50(suppl 2):1–10. pmid:27982374
- 44. Uzochukwu BS, Onwujekwe OE, Akpala CO. Effect of the Bamako-Initiative drug revolving fund on availability and rational use of essential drugs in primary health care facilities in south-east Nigeria. Health Policy Plan. 2002;17(4):378–83. pmid:12424209
- 45. Vialle-Valentin CE, Serumaga B, Wagner AK, Ross-Degnan D. Evidence on access to medicines for chronic diseases from household surveys in five low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(8):1044–52. pmid:25255920
- 46. Viana KP, Brito Ados S, Rodrigues CS, Luiz RR. Access to continued-use medication among older adults, Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:14. pmid:25741646
- 47. Wirtz VJ, Turpin K, Laing RO, Mukiira CK, Rockers PC. Access to medicines for asthma, diabetes and hypertension in eight counties of Kenya. Trop Med Int Health. 2018;23(8):879–85. pmid:29808960
- 48. Yang L, Liu C, Ferrier JA, Zhang X. Organizational barriers associated with the implementation of national essential medicines policy: A cross-sectional study of township hospitals in China. Soc Sci Med. 2015;145:201–8. pmid:26360408
- 49. Fernandopulle BMR, Gunawardena N, de Silva SHP, Abayawardana C, Hirimuthugoda LK. Patient experiences of access to NCD medicines in Sri Lanka: Evidence of the success story towards universal coverage. Med Access @ Point of Care. 2019;3:1–10.
- 50. Albelbeisi AH, Albelbeisi A, El-Bilbeisi AH, Takian A, Akbari-Sari A. Capacity of palestinian primary health care system to prevent and control of non-communicable diseases in Gaza Strip, Palestine: a capacity assessment analysis based on adapted WHO-PEN tool. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2020;35(6):1412–25. pmid:32869319
- 51. Bintabara D, Ngajilo D. Readiness of health facilities for the outpatient management of non-communicable diseases in a low-resource setting: an example from a facility-based cross-sectional survey in Tanzania. BMJ Open. 2020;10(11):e040908. pmid:33177143
- 52. Ekenna A, Itanyi IU, Nwokoro U, Hirschhorn LR, Uzochukwu B. How ready is the system to deliver primary healthcare? Results of a primary health facility assessment in Enugu State, Nigeria. Health Policy Plan. 2020;35(Supplement_1):i97–i106. pmid:33165588
- 53. Mohamed Ibrahim MI, Alshakka M, Al-Abd N, Bahattab A, Badulla W. Availability of essential medicines in a country in conflict: A quantitative insight from Yemen. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(1):1–13.
- 54. Restinia M, Laksmitawati DR, Anggriani Y, Sekowati Y. The availability of antihypertensive drug in era of nhi: A study in the primary health care centre jakarta-indonesia. International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(Special Issue 2):93–8.
- 55. Restrepo SF, Vieira MRdS, Barros CRdS, Bousquat A. Medicines’ private costs among elderly and the impairment of family income in a medium-sized municipality in the state of Sao Paulo. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia. 2020;23(39).
- 56. Saeed A, Saeed F, Saeed H, Saleem Z, Yang C, Chang J, et al. Access to Essential Cardiovascular Medicines in Pakistan: A National Survey on the Availability, Price, and Affordability, Using WHO/HAI Methodology. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:595008. pmid:33708114
- 57. Contreras-Loya D, Reding-Bernal A, Gomez-Dantes O, Puentes-Rosas E, Pineda-Perez D, Castro-Tinoco M, et al. Abasto y surtimiento de medicamentos en unidades especializadas en la atención de enfermedades crónicas en México en 2012. Salud Publica Mex. 2013;55(6):618–26. pmid:24715014
- 58. Resendez C, Garrido F, Gomez-Dantes O. Disponibilidad de medicamentos esenciales en unidades de primer nivel de la Secretaría de Salud de Tamaulipas, México. Salud Publica Mex. 2000;42(4):298–308. pmid:11026071
- 59. Mendes LV, Campos MR, Chaves GC, Mendes da Silva R, da Silva Freitas P, Costa KS, et al. Disponibilidade de medicamentos nas unidades básicas de saúde e fatores relacionados: uma abordagem transversal. Saúde Debate. 2014;38:109–23.
- 60. Sabot OJ, Mwita A, Cohen JM, Ipuge Y, Gordon M, Bishop D, et al. Piloting the global subsidy: the impact of subsidized artemisinin-based combination therapies distributed through private drug shops in rural Tanzania. PLoS One. 2009;4(9):e6857. pmid:19724644
- 61.
World Bank Country and Lending Groups [Internet] Washington, D.C.: World Bank; 2020 [cited 2020 Sept 14]. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519.
- 62. Luiza VL, Chaves LA, Campos MR, Bertoldi AD, Silva RM, Bigdeli M, et al. Applying a health system perspective to the evolving Farmacia Popular medicines access programme in Brazil. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2(Suppl 3):e000547. pmid:29527335
- 63. Robertson J, Mace C, Forte G, de Joncheere K, Beran D. Medicines availability for non-communicable diseases: the case for standardized monitoring. Global Health. 2015;11:18. pmid:25947094
- 64. Murphy A, McGowan C, McKee M, Suhrcke M, Hanson K. Coping with healthcare costs for chronic illness in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(4):e001475. pmid:31543984
- 65.
Measuring medicine prices, availability, affordability and price components Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008 [cited 2020 Sept 14]. Available from: https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/access/OMS_Medicine_prices.pdf.
- 66. Levi J, Pozniak A, Heath K, Hill A. The impact of HIV prevalence, conflict, corruption, and GDP/capita on treatment cascades: data from 137 countries. J Virus Erad. 2018;4(2):80–90. pmid:29682299
- 67. Shieshia M, Noel M, Andersson S, Felling B, Alva S, Agarwal S, et al. Strengthening community health supply chain performance through an integrated approach: Using mHealth technology and multilevel teams in Malawi. J Glob Health. 2014;4(2):020406. pmid:25520796
- 68. Vledder M, Friedman J, Sjoblom M, Brown T, Yadav P. Improving Supply Chain for Essential Drugs in Low-Income Countries: Results from a Large Scale Randomized Experiment in Zambia. Health Syst Reform. 2019;5(2):158–77. pmid:31194645
- 69. Attaran A. How do patents and economic policies affect access to essential medicines in developing countries? Health Aff (Milwood). 2004;23(3):155–66. pmid:15160813
- 70. Mackey TK, Liang BA. Patent and exclusivity status of essential medicines for non-communicable disease. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e51022. pmid:23226453
- 71. Beall RF, Schwalm JD, Huffman MD, McCready T, Yusuf S, Attaran A. Could patents interfere with the development of a cardiovascular polypill? J Transl Med. 2016;14(1):242.