↓ Skip to main content

Prices and availability of locally produced and imported medicines in Ethiopia and Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 137)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Prices and availability of locally produced and imported medicines in Ethiopia and Tanzania
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40545-016-0095-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Ewen, W. Kaplan, T. Gedif, M. Justin-Temu, C. Vialle-Valentin, Z. Mirza, B. Regeer, M. Zweekhorst, R. Laing

Abstract

To assess the effect of policies supporting local medicine production to improve access to medicines. We adapted the WHO/HAI instruments measuring medicines availability and prices to differentiate local from imported products, then pilot tested in Ethiopia and Tanzania. In each outlet, prices were recorded for all products in stock for medicines on a country-specific list. Government procurement prices were also collected. Prices were compared to an international reference and expressed as median price ratios (MPR). The Ethiopian government paid more for local products (median MPR = 1.20) than for imports (median MPR = 0.84). Eight of nine medicines procured as both local and imported products were cheaper when imported. Availability was better for local products compared to imports, in the public (48% vs. 19%, respectively) and private (54% vs. 35%, respectively) sectors. Patient prices were lower for imports in the public sector (median MPR = 1.18[imported] vs. 1.44[local]) and higher in the private sector (median MPR = 5.42[imported] vs. 1.85[local]). In the public sector, patients paid 17% and 53% more than the government procurement price for local and imported products, respectively. The Tanzanian government paid less for local products (median MPR = 0.69) than imports (median MPR = 1.34). In the public sector, availability of local and imported products was 21% and 32% respectively, with patients paying slightly more for local products (median MPR = 1.35[imported] vs. 1.44[local]). In the private sector, local products were less available (21%) than imports (70%) but prices were similar (median MPR = 2.29[imported] vs. 2.27[local]). In the public sector, patients paid 135% and 65% more than the government procurement price for local and imported products, respectively. Our results show how local production can affect availability and prices, and how it can be influenced by preferential purchasing and mark-ups in the public sector. Governments need to evaluate the impact of local production policies, and adjust policies to protect patients from paying more for local products.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 25%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Engineering 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 9 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,311,519
of 11,229,218 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#35
of 137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,954
of 319,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,229,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 319,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.