Does access to medicines differ by gender? Evidence from 15 low and middle income countries

Stephens, Peter; Ross‐Degnan, Dennis; Wagner, Anita K.

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.01.016

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The review was restricted to manuscripts written in English. In total, 15 articles consisting of eight qualitative (26–33) and seven quantitative studies (34–40) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Figure 1 shows the flow of included studies in this review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies included in this review were conducted in South America (29, 36, 39), Africa (27, 31, 33–35), Asia (28, 30, 38), Eastern Europe (26, 32), and cross-country studies conducted in different regions (37, 40). The publication years ranged from 2008 to 2014, while data for the secondary analysis by Gakidou et al (37) were collected between 1994 (in Mexico) and 2008 (in Thailand).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The publication years ranged from 2008 to 2014, while data for the secondary analysis by Gakidou et al (37) were collected between 1994 (in Mexico) and 2008 (in Thailand). We included seven quantitative studies (34–40), six qualitative studies (26–28, 31–33), and two mixed-method studies (29, 30). In the mixed-method studies, only the qualitative components met the inclusion criteria.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The population coverage of the studies was as follows: three quantitative studies (35, 36, 39) covered a national population, two quantitative studies (34, 38), and seven qualitative studies (26–31, 33) covered a sub-national population (specific province or site), two quantitative (37, 40) and one qualitative (32) study covered a cross-countries population. The sample size in the quantitative studies ranged from 2,848 to 49,695 participants (34–39).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The qualitative studies included interviews or focus group discussions with 16 to 340 participants (26–33). Additionally, a study by Stephen et al (40) analysed 202,468 prescriptions for diabetes patients in 15 LMICs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assessing evidence of inequalities in access to medication for diabetic populations in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Christiani

Dhippayom

Chaiyakunapruk

2016

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInequalities in access to medications among people diagnosed with diabetes inlow- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is a public health concern since untreated diabetes can lead to severe complications and premature death.ObjectiveTo assess evidence of inequalities in access to medication for diabetes in adult populations of people with diagnosed diabetes in LMICs.DesignWe conducted a systematic review of the literature using the PRISMA-Equity guidelines. A search of five databases – PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE – was conducted from inception to November 2015. Using deductive content analysis, information extracted from the selected articles was analysed according to the PRISMA-Equity guidelines, based on exposure variables (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, socio-economic status, social capital, and others).ResultsFifteen articles (seven quantitative and eight qualitative studies) are included in this review. There were inconsistent findings between studies conducted in different countries and regions although financial and geographic barriers generally contributed to inequalities in access to diabetes medications. The poor, those with relatively low education, and people living in remote areas had less access to diabetes medications. Furthermore, we found that the level of government political commitment through primary health care and in the provision of essential medicines was an important factor in promoting access to medications.ConclusionsThe review indicates that inequalities exist in accessing medication among diabetic populations, although this was not evident in all LMICs. Further research is needed to assess the social determinants of health and medication access for people with diabetes in LMICs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessing evidence of inequalities in access to medication for diabetic populations in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Christiani

Dhippayom

Chaiyakunapruk

2016

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Impact of price deregulation policy on the affordability of essential medicines for women’s health: a panel data analysis

Liu

Wang

Liu

et al. 2017

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The alternativisation of healthcare: A sociological framework for analysis

Ogunrotifa

2020

Cogent Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of alternative medicine (AM) outside mainstream healthcare has witnessed an increasing upsurge across western societies in recent decades. The theoretical tool articulated to capture this growing uptake of AM coalesced around the framework of alternativisation. Drawing from the perspectives in medical sociology, this article maps out the dimensions through which alternativisation and the expansion of AM in society. The key questions of what is alternativisation, how useful is alternativisation as a sociological concept, what is the nexus between alternativisation, medicalisation and pharmaceutisation and what are the future sociological agendas in this new domain are addressed in this article. It is posited that alternativisation occurs in society because AM practitioners contest therapeutic space with orthodox medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies and further extend their sphere of competence and expertise to the production of medicinal products for every day and personal problems that are outside the purview of medicalisation and pharmaceutisation. The article concludes by fleshing out empirical issues that are likely to impact the domain of AM as a form of healthcare and enriches the conceptual value of alternativisation in future sociological research.

show abstract

Does access to medicines differ by gender? Evidence from 15 low and middle income countries

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Assessing evidence of inequalities in access to medication for diabetic populations in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Assessing evidence of inequalities in access to medication for diabetic populations in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Impact of price deregulation policy on the affordability of essential medicines for women’s health: a panel data analysis

The alternativisation of healthcare: A sociological framework for analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About