↓ Skip to main content

Challenges of medicines management in the public and private sector under Ghana’s National Health Insurance Scheme – A qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, February 2016
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 (#41 of 140)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Challenges of medicines management in the public and private sector under Ghana’s National Health Insurance Scheme – A qualitative study
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40545-016-0055-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul G. Ashigbie, Devine Azameti, Veronika J. Wirtz

Abstract

Ghana established its National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) in 2003 with the goal of ensuring more equitable financing of health care to improve access to health services. This qualitative study examines the challenges and consequences of medicines management policies and practices under the NHIS as perceived by public and private service providers. This study was conducted in health facilities in the Eastern, Greater Accra and Volta regions of Ghana between July and August 2014. We interviewed 26 Key Informants (KIs) from a purposively selected sample of public and private sector providers (government and mission hospitals, private hospitals and private standalone pharmacies), pharmaceutical suppliers and NHIS district offices. Data was collected using semi-structured interview guides which covered facility accreditation, reimbursement practices, medicines selection, purchasing and pricing of medicines, and utilization of medicines. Codes for data analysis were developed based on the study questions and also in response to themes that emerged from the transcripts and notes. Most KIs agreed that the introduction of the NHIS has increased access to and utilization of medicines by removing cost barriers for patients; however, some pointed out the increased utilization could also be corollary to moral hazard. Common concerns across all facilities were the delays in receiving NHIS reimbursements, and low reimbursement rates for medicines which result in providers asking patients to pay supplementary fees. KIs reported important differences between private and public sectors including weak separation of prescribing and dispensing and limited use of drugs and therapeutic committees in the private sector, the disproportionate effects of unfavorable reimbursement prices for medicines, and inadequate participation of the private sector providers (especially pharmacies and licensed chemical sellers) in the NHIS. Health providers generally perceive the NHIS to have had a largely positive impact on access to medicines. However, concerns remain about equity in access to medicines and the differences in quality of pharmaceutical care delivered by private and public providers. Routine monitoring of medicines use during the implementation of health insurance schemes is important to identify and address the potential consequences of medicines policies and practices under the scheme.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kenya 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 23%
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 24%
Social Sciences 16 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 12 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,130,073
of 9,716,694 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#41
of 140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,620
of 292,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,716,694 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 140 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 70% 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 292,959 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.