Health system determinants of access to essential medicines for children with cancer in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence of the context-specific challenges related to childhood cancer drug (CCD) access is vital to improving outcomes for children with cancer in low- and middle-income countries, such as Ghana. We sought to determine the availability and cost of essential CCD in Ghana and identify the underlying determinants of access. METHODS: Our study integrated quantitative data on drug prices and availability with qualitative insights into health system and sociopolitical determinants of CCD access in Ghana. We analysed retrospective monthly price and stock data for 41 cancer and supportive care drugs on the WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) from private retail and public institutional pharmacies. Non-parametric analyses evaluated relationships between drug price and availability, and impacts of drug class and formulation on availability and procurement efficiency. We assessed the determinants of drug access through thematic analysis of policy documents and semi-structured interviews (n=21) with key health system stakeholders. RESULTS: Ghana lists only 47% of essential CCD on its National EML, revealing gaps in domestic formulary inclusion. Stock-outs occurred for 88% of essential CCD, with a 70-day median stock-out duration; 32% had median price ratios above internationally-accepted efficiency thresholds. Drugs procured inefficiently were more susceptible to stock-outs (p=0.0003). Principal determinants of drug access included: (1) lack of sociopolitical priority afforded childhood cancer and (2) the impact of policy and regulatory environments on drug affordability, availability and quality. Establishment of a population-based cancer registry, a nationally-coordinated procurement strategy for CCD, public financing for childhood cancer care and policies to control drug costs emerged as priority interventions to improve drug access in Ghana. CONCLUSION: Our study provides context-specific evidence to enable responsive policy development for efficient drug procurement and supply management in Ghana and establishes a rigorous approach to the analysis of childhood cancer drug access in similar health system settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".