↓ Skip to main content

What happened to anti-malarial markets after the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria pilot? Trends in ACT availability, price and market share from five African countries under continuation of the…

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
What happened to anti-malarial markets after the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria pilot? Trends in ACT availability, price and market share from five African countries under continuation of the private sector co-payment mechanism
Published in
Malaria Journal, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1814-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

ACTwatch Group, Sarah Tougher, Kara Hanson, Catherine Goodman

Abstract

The private sector supplies anti-malarial treatment for large proportions of patients in sub-Saharan Africa. Following the large-scale piloting of the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria (AMFm) from 2010 to 2011, a private sector co-payment mechanism (CPM) provided continuation of private sector subsidies for quality-assured artemisinin combination therapies (QAACT). This article analyses for the first time the extent to which improvements in private sector QAACT supply and distribution observed during the AMFm were maintained or intensified during continuation of the CPM through 2015 in Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda using repeat cross-sectional outlet survey data. QAACT market share in all five countries increased during the AMFm period (p < 0.001). According to the data from the last ACTwatch survey round, in all study countries except Madagascar, AMFm levels of private sector QAACT availability were maintained or improved. In 2014/15, private sector QAACT availability was greater than 70% in Nigeria (84.3%), Kenya (70.5%), Tanzania (83.0%) and Uganda (77.1%), but only 11.2% in Madagascar. QAACT market share was maintained or improved post-AMFm in Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda, but statistically significant declines were observed in Kenya and Madagascar. In 2014/5, QAACT market share was highest in Kenya and Uganda (48.2 and 47.5%, respectively) followed by Tanzania (39.2%), Nigeria (35.0%), and Madagascar (7.0%). Four of the five countries experienced significant decreases in median QAACT price during the AMFm period. Private sector QAACT prices were maintained or further reduced in Tanzania, Nigeria and Uganda, but prices increased significantly in Kenya and Madagascar. SP prices were consistently lower than those of QAACT in the AMFm period, with the exception of Kenya and Tanzania in 2011, where they were equal. In 2014/5 QAACT remained two to three times more expensive than the most popular non-artemisinin therapy in all countries except Tanzania. Results suggest that a private sector co-payment mechanism for QAACT implemented at national scale for 5 years was associated with positive and sustained improvements in QAACT availability, price and market share in Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda, with more mixed results in Kenya, and few improvements in Madagascar. The subsidy mechanism as implemented over time across countries was not sufficient on its own to achieve optimal QAACT uptake. Supporting interventions to address continued availability and distribution of non-artemisinin therapies, and to create demand for QAACT among providers and consumers need to be effectively implemented to realize the full potential of this subsidy mechanism. Furthermore, there is need for comprehensive market assessments to identify contemporary market barriers to high coverage with both confirmatory testing and appropriate treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 27 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 31 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,298,109
of 24,710,887 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#445
of 5,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,116
of 314,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#16
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,710,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 314,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.