Gautham Meenakshi, Spicer Neil, Chatterjee Soumyadip, Goodman Catherine
Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17, Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
26, Manmothonath Ganguly road, Kolkata, 700002, India.
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Apr;275:113813. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113813. Epub 2021 Mar 6.
In many low- and middle-income countries, providers without formal training are an important source of antibiotics, but may provide these inappropriately, contributing to the rising burden of drug resistant infections. Informal providers (IPs) who practise allopathic medicine are part of India's pluralistic health system legacy. They outnumber formal providers but operate in a policy environment of unclear legitimacy, creating unique challenges for antibiotic stewardship. Using a systems approach we analysed the multiple intrinsic (provider specific) and extrinsic (community, health and regulatory system and pharmaceutical industry) drivers of antibiotic provision by IPs in rural West Bengal, to inform the design of community stewardship interventions. We surveyed 291 IPs in randomly selected village clusters in two contrasting districts and conducted in-depth interviews with 30 IPs and 17 key informants including pharmaceutical sales representatives, managers and wholesalers/retailers; medically qualified private and public doctors and health and regulatory officials. Eight focus group discussions were conducted with community members. We found a mosaic or bricolage of informal practices conducted by IPs, qualified doctors and industry stakeholders that sustained private enterprise and supplemented the weak public health sector. IPs' intrinsic drivers included misconceptions about the therapeutic necessity of antibiotics, and direct and indirect economic benefits, though antibiotics were not the most profitable category of drug sales. Private doctors were a key source of IPs' learning, often in exchange for referrals. IPs constituted a substantial market for local and global pharmaceutical companies that adopted aggressive business strategies to exploit less-saturated rural markets. Paradoxically, the top-down nature of regulations produced a regulatory impasse wherein regulators were reluctant to enforce heavy sanctions for illegal sales, fearing an adverse impact on rural healthcare, but could not implement enabling strategies to improve antibiotic provision due to legal barriers. We discuss the implications for a multi-stakeholder antibiotic stewardship strategy in this setting.
在许多低收入和中等收入国家,未经正规培训的医疗服务提供者是抗生素的重要来源,但他们可能不恰当地提供抗生素,导致耐药感染负担不断加重。从事对抗疗法的非正规医疗服务提供者(IPs)是印度多元卫生系统遗留问题的一部分。他们的数量超过正规医疗服务提供者,但在合法性不明确的政策环境中运营,给抗生素管理带来了独特挑战。我们采用系统方法分析了西孟加拉邦农村地区IPs提供抗生素的多种内在(提供者特定)和外在(社区、卫生和监管系统以及制药行业)驱动因素,以为社区管理干预措施的设计提供参考。我们在两个形成对比的地区随机选取的村庄集群中对291名IPs进行了调查,并对30名IPs和17名关键信息提供者进行了深入访谈,这些关键信息提供者包括药品销售代表、经理以及批发商/零售商;具有医学资质的私立和公立医生以及卫生和监管官员。我们与社区成员进行了八次焦点小组讨论。我们发现,IPs、合格医生和行业利益相关者进行了一系列拼凑而成的非正式做法,这些做法维持了私营企业的运营,并对薄弱的公共卫生部门起到了补充作用。IPs的内在驱动因素包括对抗生素治疗必要性的误解以及直接和间接的经济利益,尽管抗生素并非药品销售中最赚钱的类别。私立医生是IPs学习的关键来源,通常以转诊作为交换。IPs构成了本地和全球制药公司的一个庞大市场,这些公司采取积极的商业策略来开拓饱和度较低的农村市场。矛盾的是,监管的自上而下性质导致了监管僵局,监管机构因担心对农村医疗保健产生不利影响而不愿对非法销售实施严厉制裁,但由于法律障碍又无法实施促进性策略来改善抗生素的供应。我们讨论了在此背景下多利益相关方抗生素管理策略的影响。