Health, Economic, and Social Impacts of Substandard and Falsified Medicines in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches.

Little is known about the adverse health, economic, and social impacts of substandard and falsified medicines (SFMs). This systematic review aimed to identify the methods used in studies to measure the impact of SFMs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), summarize their findings, and identify gaps in the reviewed literature. A search of eight databases for published papers, and a manual search of references in the relevant literature were conducted using synonyms of SFMs and LMICs. Studies in the English language that estimated the health, social, or economic impacts of SFMs in LMICs published before June 17, 2022 were considered eligible. Search results generated 1,078 articles, and 11 studies were included after screening and quality assessment. All included studies focused on countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Six studies used the Substandard and Falsified Antimalarials Research Impact model to estimate the impact of SFMs. This model is an important contribution. However, it is technically challenging and data demanding, which poses challenges to its adoption by national academics and policymakers alike. The included studies estimate that substandard and falsified antimalarial medicines can account from 10% to ∼40% of total annual malaria costs, and SFMs affect rural and poor populations disproportionately. Evidence on the impact of SFMs is limited in general and nonexistent regarding social outcomes. Further research needs to focus on practical methods that can serve local authorities without major investments in terms of technical capacity and data collection.

The role of context in implementation research for non-communicable diseases: Answering the 'how-to' dilemma.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding context and how this can be systematically assessed and incorporated is crucial to successful implementation. We describe how context has been assessed (including exploration or evaluation) in Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) implementation research projects focused on improving health in people with or at risk of chronic disease and how contextual lessons were incorporated into the intervention or the implementation process. METHODS: Using a web-based semi-structured questionnaire, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to collect quantitative and qualitative data across GACD projects (n = 20) focusing on hypertension, diabetes and lung diseases. The use of context-specific data from project planning to evaluation was analyzed using mixed methods and a multi-layered context framework across five levels; 1) individual and family, 2) community, 3) healthcare setting, 4) local or district level, and 5) state or national level. RESULTS: Project teams used both qualitative and mixed methods to assess multiple levels of context (avg. = 4). Methodological approaches to assess context were identified as formal and informal assessments, engagement of stakeholders, use of locally adapted resources and materials, and use of diverse data sources. Contextual lessons were incorporated directly into the intervention by informing or adapting the intervention, improving intervention participation or improving communication with participants/stakeholders. Provision of services, equipment or information, continuous engagement with stakeholders, feedback for personnel to address gaps, and promoting institutionalization were themes identified to describe how contextual lessons are incorporated into the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: Context is regarded as critical and influenced the design and implementation of the GACD funded chronic disease interventions. There are different approaches to assess and incorporate context as demonstrated by this study and further research is required to systematically evaluate contextual approaches in terms of how they contribute to effectiveness or implementation outcomes.