↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative evaluation of essential medicines lists: the South African case study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Quantitative evaluation of essential medicines lists: the South African case study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1937-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Velisha Ann Perumal-Pillay, Fatima Suleman

Abstract

The South African (SA) health system has employed an Essential Medicines List (EML) with Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) since 1996. To date no studies have reported the changes in SA STG/EMLs. This study describes these changes over time (1996-2013) and compares latest SA STG/EMLs with the latest World Health Organization (WHO) Model EMLs to assess alignment of these lists. A quantitative evaluation of SA STGs/EMLs at 2 levels of healthcare was performed to assess changes in the number and ratio of molecules, dosage forms, and additions and deletions of medicines. The most recent WHO EMLs (18th list, 4th list for children) and 2012 priority life-saving medicines for women and children (PMWC) list were compared to the most recent available SA STG/EMLs (Primary Health Care (PHC 2008), Adult Hospital 2012, and Paediatric Hospital 2013) at the time of the research. The number of molecules over the years increased for PHC STG/EMLs but decreased slightly for Adult and Paediatric hospital STG/EMLs. The most additions and deletions over time occurred in the Adult hospital level STG/EML (27 in 2006 and 44 in 2012). A comparison between the most recent SA STG/EMLs and WHO Model EML (18th list) showed that a total of 112 medicines were absent on all SA STG/EMLs. A comparison of medicines for children between the 2013 SA Paediatric Hospital level STG/EML and PMWC indicated that these lists were somewhat aligned for most conditions as only 3 of 14 medicines and 11 of 20 vaccines were absent from SA STG/EMLs. This is the first study in SA to investigate changes in National EMLs over time in relation to molecules, dosage forms and therapeutic classes. It is also the first to compare the latest SA STG/EMLs to the WHO Model lists. The results therefore provide insight into the trends and SA STG/EML processes over time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 25%
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Other 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 25%
Social Sciences 5 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Unspecified 2 10%
Other 2 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,321,261
of 11,194,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,132
of 3,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,905
of 264,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#62
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,194,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,874 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.