↓ Skip to main content

Novel models to improve access to medicines for chronic diseases in South Africa: an analysis of stakeholder perspectives on community-based distribution models

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Novel models to improve access to medicines for chronic diseases in South Africa: an analysis of stakeholder perspectives on community-based distribution models
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40545-016-0082-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bvudzai Priscilla Magadzire, Bruno Marchal, Kim Ward

Abstract

The rising demand for chronic disease treatment and the barriers to accessing these medicines have led to the development of novel models for distributing medicines in South Africa's public sector, including distribution away from health centres, known as community-based distribution (CBD). In this article, we provide a typology of CBD models and outline perceived facilitators and barriers to their implementation using an adapted health systems framework with a view to analysing how future policy decisions on CBD could impact existing models and the health system as a whole. A qualitative exploratory study comprising in-depth interviews and non-participant observations was conducted between 2012 and 2014 in one province. Study participants consisted of frontline healthcare providers (HCPs) in the public sector and a few policy, supply chain and public health experts. Observations of processes occurred at two CBD sites. We conducted deductive analysis guided by the adapted framework. Models varied in typology ranging from formal (approved by the Department of Health) to informal (demand-driven) and with or without user-fees. Processes and structures also differed, as did HCPs' perceptions of what is appropriate. HCPs perceived that CBD models were largely acceptable to patients and accommodating of their needs. Affordability of services linked to charging of user-fees was a contested issue, requiring further exploration. CBD models operated in the absence of formal policy to guide implementation, and this, coupled with the involvement of non-health professionals, issues regarding medicines handling and storage; and limited patient counselling raised concerns about the quality of pharmaceutical services being delivered. Policy decisions on each of the health system elements will likely affect other elements and ultimately influence the structure and operational modalities of models. In anticipation of a future CBD policy, stakeholders cited the need for a context specific lens in order to harmonise with current implementation efforts. A formal policy on CBD is required in an effort to standardise services for quality assurance purposes. Frontline HCPs should be involved in the development of such policy to ensure that existing arrangements already working well are not undermined. Further research will seek to contribute towards evidence-based development of policy and service delivery guidelines for CBD activities in South Africa.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 13%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,473,108
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#357
of 409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,244
of 324,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.