IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0223523.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A cross sectional comparison of drug use indicators using WHO methodology in primary level hospitals participating in an Auditable Pharmaceutical Transactions and Services program versus non-APTS primary hospitals in Southern Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Biruk Wogayehu
  • Yilma Chisha
  • Be’emnetu Tekabe
  • Ayalew Adinew
  • Mulugeta Asefaw

Abstract

Introduction: Ethiopian pharmaceutical sector has been facing inaccessibility and unaffordability to key essential medicines due to medicines diversion from the public to private health care facilities, lack of transparency, poor inventory management, and poor dispensing workflow. In an effort to improve the pharmaceutical sector, the government of Ethiopia in 2011 introduced Auditable Pharmaceutical Transactions and Services program. This study intended to compare drug use indicators in auditable and non-auditable primary level hospitals. Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted between January 2018 and December 2018 at primary level hospitals in southern Ethiopia: one with Auditable Pharmaceutical Transactions and Services (APTS) program; another without APTS (Non-APTS).WHO drug use indicators in auditable primary hospitals (n = 10) and similar non-auditable primary hospitals (n = 10) were compared. The prescribing indicators and average cost of medicines were evaluated retrospectively using 1000 prescriptions from each group. Patient care indicators were evaluated prospectively by interviewing and observing 1000 patients from each group. Patient satisfaction was assessed by interviewing 1000 patients from each group. Health care facilities were evaluated through observation. We performed descriptive analysis, t-test, logistic regression, Mann-Whitney U test and linear regression using SPSS version 20.0. Results: The mean consultation time in auditable and non-auditable hospitals was found to be 6.5 minutes and 3.46 minutes, respectively. The average dispensing time in auditable and non-auditable hospitals was found to be 6.6 minutes and 1.02 minutes, respectively.The proportion of drugs actually dispensed was 97.59% in APTS facilities and 76.44% in the non-auditable facilities with the lowest value seen in a non-auditable facility (51.65%). The average number of drugs per prescription was 2.32 (±1.26) and 2.84 (±1.17) in auditable and non-auditable facilities, respectively. The level of patient satisfaction on the convenience of pharmacy location, information on contraindications, availability of drugs and amount of time for counseling was significantly higher in the auditable facilities than the non-auditable facilities (p

Suggested Citation

  • Biruk Wogayehu & Yilma Chisha & Be’emnetu Tekabe & Ayalew Adinew & Mulugeta Asefaw, 2019. "A cross sectional comparison of drug use indicators using WHO methodology in primary level hospitals participating in an Auditable Pharmaceutical Transactions and Services program versus non-APTS prim," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-26, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223523
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223523
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223523
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223523&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0223523?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathleen Anne Holloway & David Henry, 2014. "WHO Essential Medicines Policies and Use in Developing and Transitional Countries: An Analysis of Reported Policy Implementation and Medicines Use Surveys," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kathleen Anne Holloway & Laura Rosella & David Henry, 2016. "The Impact of WHO Essential Medicines Policies on Inappropriate Use of Antibiotics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Onella Charles & Igho Onakpoya & Simran Benipal & Hannah Woods & Anjli Bali & Jeffrey K Aronson & Carl Heneghan & Nav Persaud, 2019. "Withdrawn medicines included in the essential medicines lists of 136 countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Kathleen Anne Holloway & Verica Ivanovska & Solaiappan Manikandan & Mathaiyan Jayanthi & Anbarasan Mohan & Gilles Forte & David Henry, 2020. "Identifying the most effective essential medicines policies for quality use of medicines: A replicability study using three World Health Organisation data-sets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Katrina Perehudoff & Ivan Demchenko & Nikita V. Alexandrov & David Brutsaert & Angela Ackon & Carlos E. Durán & Faris El-Dahiyat & Firdaus Hafidz & Rezwan Haque & Rabia Hussain & Roderick Salenga & Fa, 2020. "Essential Medicines in Universal Health Coverage: A Scoping Review of Public Health Law Interventions and How They Are Measured in Five Middle-Income Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-30, December.
    5. S Katrina Perehudoff & Nikita V Alexandrov & Hans V Hogerzeil, 2019. "The right to health as the basis for universal health coverage: A cross-national analysis of national medicines policies of 71 countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Mai Duong & Rebekah J Moles & Betty Chaar & Timothy F Chen & World Hospital Pharmacy Research Consortium (WHoPReC), 2015. "Essential Medicines in a High Income Country: Essential to Whom?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223523. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.