↓ Skip to main content

Public health interventions to protect against falsified medicines: a systematic review of international, national and local policies

Overview of attention for article published in Health Policy & Planning, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
38 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Public health interventions to protect against falsified medicines: a systematic review of international, national and local policies
Published in
Health Policy & Planning, June 2016
DOI 10.1093/heapol/czw062
Pubmed ID
Authors

William L. Hamilton, Cormac Doyle, Mycroft Halliwell-Ewen, Gabriel Lambert

Abstract

Falsified medicines are deliberately fraudulent drugs that pose a direct risk to patient health and undermine healthcare systems, causing global morbidity and mortality. To produce an overview of anti-falsifying public health interventions deployed at international, national and local scales in low and middle income countries (LMIC). We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for healthcare or pharmaceutical policies relevant to reducing the burden of falsified medicines in LMIC. Our initial search identified 660 unique studies, of which 203 met title/abstract inclusion criteria and were categorised according to their primary focus: international; national; local pharmacy; internet pharmacy; drug analysis tools. Eighty-four were included in the qualitative synthesis, along with 108 articles and website links retrieved through secondary searches. On the international stage, we discuss the need for accessible pharmacovigilance (PV) global reporting systems, international leadership and funding incorporating multiple stakeholders (healthcare, pharmaceutical, law enforcement) and multilateral trade agreements that emphasise public health. On the national level, we explore the importance of establishing adequate medicine regulatory authorities and PV capacity, with drug screening along the supply chain. This requires interdepartmental coordination, drug certification and criminal justice legislation and enforcement that recognise the severity of medicine falsification. Local healthcare professionals can receive training on medicine quality assessments, drug registration and pharmacological testing equipment. Finally, we discuss novel technologies for drug analysis which allow rapid identification of fake medicines in low-resource settings. Innovative point-of-purchase systems like mobile phone verification allow consumers to check the authenticity of their medicines. Combining anti-falsifying strategies targeting different levels of the pharmaceutical supply chain provides multiple barriers of protection from falsified medicines. This requires the political will to drive policy implementation; otherwise, people around the world remain at risk.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 226 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 18%
Researcher 31 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 41 18%
Unknown 40 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 43 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 37 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 7%
Social Sciences 16 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 6%
Other 55 24%
Unknown 47 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#587,764
of 16,647,928 outputs
Outputs from Health Policy & Planning
#85
of 1,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,376
of 268,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Policy & Planning
#2
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,647,928 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,929 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 268,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.