Uzochukwu Benjamin S C, Onwujekwe Obinna E, Akpala Cyril O
Department of Community Medicine, University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Enugu, Nigeria.
Health Policy Plan. 2002 Dec;17(4):378-83. doi: 10.1093/heapol/17.4.378.
To compare the level of availability and rational use of drugs in primary health care (PHC) facilities where the Bamako Initiative (BI) drug revolving fund programme has been operational, with PHC centres where the BI-type of drug revolving fund programme is not yet operational.
The study was undertaken in 21 PHC centres with BI drug revolving funds and 12 PHC centres without BI drug revolving funds, all in Enugu State of Nigeria. Data were collected on the essential and non-essential drugs stocked by the facilities. Drug use was determined through analyses of prescriptions in each health centre. Finally, the proportion of consumers that were able to remember their dosing schedules was determined.
An average of 35.4 essential drugs was available in the BI health centres compared with 15.3 in the non-BI health centres (p < 0.05). The average drug-stock was adequate for 6.3 weeks in the BI health centres, but for 1.1 weeks in non-BI health centres (p < 0.05). More injections (64.7 vs. 25.6%) and more antibiotics (72.8 vs. 38%) were prescribed in BI health centres than in the non-BI health centres (p < 0.05). The BI health centres had an average of 5.3 drugs per prescription against 2.1 in the non-BI health centres. However, the drugs prescribed by generic name and from the essential drug list were higher in the BI health centres (80 and 93%) than the non-BI health centres (15.5 and 21%, respectively) (p < 0.05).
It was observed that the BI facilities had a better availability of essential drugs both in number and in average stock. However, the BI has given rise to more drug prescribing, which could be irrational. The findings call for strategies to ensure more availability of essential drugs especially in the non-BI PHC centres as a strategy to decrease medical costs and improve the quality of PHC services, while promoting rational drug use in all PHC centres. More detailed studies (for example, by focus group discussion or structured interviews) should be undertaken to find out reasons for the over-prescription and to develop future interventions to correct this.
比较巴马科倡议(BI)药品周转基金项目已实施的初级卫生保健(PHC)机构与尚未实施BI类药品周转基金项目的PHC中心在药品可及性和合理使用水平方面的差异。
该研究在尼日利亚埃努古州的21个设有BI药品周转基金的PHC中心和12个未设BI药品周转基金的PHC中心开展。收集各机构储备的基本药物和非基本药物的数据。通过分析每个卫生中心的处方来确定药物使用情况。最后,确定能够记住服药时间表的消费者比例。
BI卫生中心平均有35.4种基本药物,而非BI卫生中心为15.3种(p<0.05)。BI卫生中心的平均药品储备量足够维持6.3周,而非BI卫生中心仅为1.1周(p<0.05)。与非BI卫生中心相比,BI卫生中心开具的注射剂(64.7%对25.6%)和抗生素(72.8%对38%)更多(p<0.05)。BI卫生中心每张处方平均有5.3种药物,而非BI卫生中心为2.1种。然而,BI卫生中心按通用名开具且来自基本药物清单的药物比例(分别为80%和93%)高于非BI卫生中心(分别为15.5%和21%)(p<0.05)。
观察发现,BI机构在基本药物数量和平均储备方面的可及性更好。然而,BI导致了更多的药物处方,这可能是不合理的。研究结果呼吁采取策略,确保尤其是在非BI的PHC中心有更多基本药物的可及性,以此作为降低医疗成本和提高PHC服务质量的策略,同时在所有PHC中心促进合理用药。应开展更详细的研究(例如,通过焦点小组讨论或结构化访谈),以找出过度处方的原因并制定未来的干预措施来纠正这一情况。