http://jcps.bjmu.edu.cn

Journal of Chinese Pharmaceutical Sciences ›› 2019, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (1): 49-55.DOI: 10.5246/jcps.2019.01.006

• Drug administration and clinical pharmacy column • Previous Articles     Next Articles

The impacts of national essential medicine policies on the rational use of medicines in China: A cross-sectional study in primary health care institution

Xinpu Lu1, Zhigang Guo2,3, Mengyuan Fu4, Haishaerjiang Wushouer3, Luwen Shi3,4, Xiaodong Guan3,4*   

  1. 1. Beijing Cancer Hospital, Beijing 100142, China
    2. Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China
    3. International Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China
    4. Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China
  • Received:2018-11-09 Revised:2018-12-15 Online:2019-01-27 Published:2018-12-20
  • Contact: Tel.: +86-010-82805019, E-mail: guanxiaodong@pku.edu.cn
  • Supported by:

    National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71303011, 71774005).

Abstract:

Irrational use of medicines is a major problem worldwide, and it is believed there would be positive correlation between the National Essential Medicines Policies (NEMPs)and the level of rational use of medicines (RUMs). Though there is some early evidence on the NEMPs’ effects on RUMs in China, the evidence is scarce, and conclusions vary. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the impacts of the NEMPs of China on the RUMs in the primary health care institutions (PHCs). A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2010. A total of 201 PHCs from six provinces of China were selected, and 39 181 prescriptions were extracted from January to June, 2010. Six indicators were used and tested by independent-samples T test. We found that the average number of drugs per prescription in PHCs with NEMP implementation (the treatment group) was significantly higher than that of the group without NEMP implementation (the control group) (3.37 vs. 2.83, P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the average cost per prescription (81.43 vs. 75.02). The percentage of prescriptions, including an antibiotic (53.40% vs. 36.48%, P<0.01) or an injection (40.54% vs. 27.94%, P<0.01), was higher in the treatment group, and the percentage of drugs prescribed by general name was significantly lower (83.71% vs. 93.11%, P<0.01). For the percentage of drugs prescribed from essential medicines list, the treatment group exhibited the higher ratio (76.12% vs. 53.45%, P<0.01). From this study, the NEMPs were not likely to have a positive impact on RUMs. China still needed efforts to improve the selection, the absence of physicians’ active involvement, and the patients habits of irrational medication use.

Key words: Rational use of medicines, Primary health care institutions, National Essential Medicines Policies, Health care reforms

CLC Number: 

Supporting: