8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Together we unite: the role of the Commonwealth in achieving universal health coverage through pharmaceutical care amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The world currently faces unprecedented health challenges as COVID-19 poses a huge threat to health systems, economies and societies as we know it. The events of the current COVID-19 pandemic have further emphasised existing issues within our health systems. There is no better time than now to come together in global solidarity to tackle these evolving threats of COVID-19 pandemic. The Commonwealth is an ideally placed network to tackle these global health challenges, with its wide-reaching networks of governmental, non-governmental and civil society organisations across all continents. Although the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) originally scheduled to take place in Kigali in Rwanda 22–27 June 2020 has been postponed in view of COVID-19, Commonwealth country discussions are continuing, centred on the CHOGM key theme of ‘Delivering a Common Future: Connecting, Innovating, Transforming’, and five subthemes of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and Innovation; Trade; Environment; Governance and the Rule of Law; and Youth. The planned CHOGM and Commonwealth itself provides all members a timely platform to consider innovative ways to connect, innovate and transform healthcare to meet the needs of their populations. This commentary considers these five CHOGM subthemes and how member nations can be supported to achieve universal health coverage through optimising medicines use and outcomes, in the midst of a global pandemic in line with the global health agenda.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How to fight an infodemic

          WHO's newly launched platform aims to combat misinformation around COVID-19. John Zarocostas reports from Geneva. WHO is leading the effort to slow the spread of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. But a global epidemic of misinformation—spreading rapidly through social media platforms and other outlets—poses a serious problem for public health. “We’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic”, said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at the Munich Security Conference on Feb 15. Immediately after COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, WHO's risk communication team launched a new information platform called WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN), with the aim of using a series of amplifiers to share tailored information with specific target groups. Sylvie Briand, director of Infectious Hazards Management at WHO's Health Emergencies Programme and architect of WHO's strategy to counter the infodemic risk, told The Lancet, “We know that every outbreak will be accompanied by a kind of tsunami of information, but also within this information you always have misinformation, rumours, etc. We know that even in the Middle Ages there was this phenomenon”. “But the difference now with social media is that this phenomenon is amplified, it goes faster and further, like the viruses that travel with people and go faster and further. So it is a new challenge, and the challenge is the [timing] because you need to be faster if you want to fill the void…What is at stake during an outbreak is making sure people will do the right thing to control the disease or to mitigate its impact. So it is not only information to make sure people are informed; it is also making sure people are informed to act appropriately.” About 20 staff and some consultants are involved in WHO's communications teams globally, at any given time. This includes social media personnel at each of WHO's six regional offices, risk communications consultants, and WHO communications officers. Aleksandra Kuzmanovic, social media manager with WHO's department of communications, told The Lancet that “fighting infodemics and misinformation is a joint effort between our technical risk communications [team] and colleagues who are working on the EPI-WIN platform, where they communicate with different…professionals providing them with advice and guidelines and also receiving information”. Kuzmanovic said, “In my role, I am in touch with Facebook, Twitter, Tencent, Pinterest, TikTok, and also my colleagues in the China office who are working closely with Chinese social media platforms…So when we see some questions or rumours spreading, we write it down, we go back to our risk communications colleagues and then they help us find evidence-based answers”. “Another thing we are doing with social media platforms, and that is something we are putting our strongest efforts in, is to ensure no matter where people live….when they’re on Facebook, Twitter, or Google, when they search for ‘coronavirus’ or ‘COVID-19’ or [a] related term, they have a box that…directs them to a reliable source: either to [the] WHO website to their ministry of health or public health institute or centre for disease control”, she said. Google, Kuzmanovic noted, has created an SOS Alert on COVID-19 for the six official UN languages, and is also expanding in some other languages. The idea is to make the first information that the public receive be from the WHO website and the social media accounts of WHO and Dr Tedros. WHO also uses social media for real-time updates. WHO is also working closely with UNICEF and other international agencies that have extensive experience in risk communications, such as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Carlos Navarro, head of Public Health Emergencies at UNICEF, the children's agency, told The Lancet that while a lot of incorrect information is spreading through social media, a lot is also coming from traditional mass media. “Often, they pick the most extreme pictures they can find…There is overkill on the use of [personal protective equipment] and that tends to be the photos that are published everywhere, in all major newspapers and TV…that is, in fact, sending the wrong message”, Navarro said. David Heymann, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told The Lancet that the traditional media has a key role in providing evidence-based information to the general public, which will then hopefully be picked up on social media. He also observed that for both social and conventional media, it is important that the public health community help the media to “better understand what they should be looking for, because the media sometimes gets ahead of the evidence”.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Prevalence and Estimated Economic Burden of Substandard and Falsified Medicines in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

            Key Points Question What are the prevalence and estimated economic burden of substandard and falsified medicines in low- and middle-income countries? Findings In this systematic review of 265 studies comprising 400 647 drug samples and meta-analysis of 96 studies comprising 67 839 drug samples, the prevalence of substandard and falsified medicines in low- and middle-income countries was 13.6% overall (19.1% for antimalarials and 12.4% for antibiotics). Data on the estimated economic impact were limited primarily to market size and ranged widely from $10 billion to $200 billion. Meaning Substandard and falsified medicines are a substantial health and economic problem; a concerted global effort is needed to secure the global supply chain, increase quality control capacity, and improve surveillance to better assess the problem and identify solutions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature

              Objective To explore the evidence available of poor-quality (counterfeit and substandard) medicines in the literature. Design Systematic review. Data sources Databases used were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, including articles published till January 2013. Eligibility criteria Prevalence studies containing original data. WHO definitions (1992) used for counterfeit and substandard medicines. Study appraisal and synthesis Two reviewers independently scored study methodology against recommendations from the MEDQUARG Checklist. Studies were classified according to the World Bank classification of countries by income. Data extraction Data extracted: place of study; type of drugs sampled; sample size; percentage of substandard/counterfeit medicines; formulations included; origin of the drugs; chemical analysis and stated issues of counterfeit/substandard medicines. Results 44 prevalence studies were identified, 15 had good methodological quality. They were conducted in 25 different countries; the majority were in low-income countries (11) and/or lower middle-income countries (10). The median prevalence of substandard/counterfeit medicines was 28.5% (range 11–48%). Only two studies differentiated between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Prevalence data were limited to antimicrobial drugs (all 15 studies). 13 studies involved antimalarials, 6 antibiotics and 2 other medications. The majority of studies (93%) contained samples with inadequate amounts of active ingredients. The prevalence of substandard/counterfeit antimicrobials was significantly higher when purchased from unlicensed outlets (p<0.000; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.32). No individual data about the prevalence in upper middle-income countries and high-income countries were available. Limitations Studies with strong methodology were few. The majority did not differentiate between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Most studies assessed only a single therapeutic class of antimicrobials. Conclusions The prevalence of poor-quality antimicrobial medicines is widespread throughout Africa and Asia in lower income countries and lower middle-income countries . The main problem identified was inadequate amounts of the active ingredients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                a.chan@auckland.ac.nz , amy.chan@commonwealthpharmacy.org
                victoria.rutter@commonwealthpharmacy.org
                diane.ashiru-oredope@commonwealthpharmacy.org
                chloeztuck@gmail.com
                Z.Babar@hud.ac.uk
                Journal
                J Pharm Policy Pract
                J Pharm Policy Pract
                Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
                BioMed Central (London )
                2052-3211
                13 May 2020
                13 May 2020
                2020
                : 13
                : 13
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Commonwealth Pharmacists Association, London, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.9654.e, ISNI 0000 0004 0372 3343, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, , University of Auckland, ; Level 3, Building 505, 85 Pard Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023 New Zealand
                [3 ]GRID grid.11835.3e, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9262, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), , University of Sheffield, ; Sheffield, UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.15751.37, ISNI 0000 0001 0719 6059, University of Huddersfield, ; Huddersfield, UK
                Article
                214
                10.1186/s40545-020-00214-6
                7218554
                092938a9-5ad3-42fe-a381-a568943c448f
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                Categories
                Commentary
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                pharmacy,pharmacists,commonwealth,health,heads of government,pandemic,chogm

                Comments

                Comment on this article