Irrational medicine use and its associated factors in conflict-affected areas in Mali: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rational use of essential medicines is a critical step towards prevention and treatment of many illnesses. However, it represents a significant challenge worldwide, and particularly for under-resourced health systems in conflict-affected areas. OBJECTIVE: To assess barriers to rational use of essential medicines at primary healthcare level in conflict-affected areas of Mali. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in twenty randomly selected community health centres (CHCs) in four health districts, by applying the World Health Organisation and International Network on Rational Use of Drugs core forms for the rational use of medicines. Seven hundred eighty-nine (789) prescriptions were retrospectively selected and analysed; four hundred forty-three (443) patients were interviewed: and health facility-related indicators were collected prospectively from the 20 CHCs. RESULTS: The average number of medicines per prescription was 3.89 ± 1.83; out of these, 94.0% were prescribed by generic name, and 91.0% belonged to Mali's National List of Essential Medicines. Overall, 68% of the assessed prescriptions included antibiotics; 58% included injectables; and 75.79% were characterized by polypharmacy, i.e. more than two medicines per prescription. In multivariate analysis, the study area and prescriber's sex were significantly associated with polypharmacy; prescriber's seniority and training were associated with antibiotic overprescription; the study area, prescriber's sex and seniority were associated with overprescription of injectables. Moreover, the average price of prescriptions was high in relation to average local income, likely making these unaffordable for many households. CONCLUSION: Excessive polypharmacy and overprescription of antibiotics and injectables undermine the performance of the local health system and the achievement of intended therapeutic outcomes. Our findings provide a solid basis for more targeted and multidisciplinary research, to further inform relevant stakeholders on how best to mitigate the impact of conflict on the rational use of medicines.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".