Registration of essential medicines in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To audit national drug registers (NDRs) in Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda with respect to national Essential Medicine Lists (EMLs) and to conduct an analysis of highly registered products including a sub-analysis of highly registered antimicrobial products. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of registration of essential medicines and medicinal products on NDRs as of February 2018. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Registration status of essential medicines by country, essential medicine status of registered products by country and medicines with more than 50 registrations across all three countries. RESULTS: A high proportion of essential medicines are not registered: Kenya 28% (175/632), United Republic of Tanzania 50% (400/797) and Uganda 40% (266/663). Of registered products on the NDRs, more than half are not essential: Kenya 71% (4350/6151), United Republic of Tanzania 64% (2278/3590) and Uganda 58% (2268/3896). When the three NDRs were combined, there were 42 medicines with over 50 registered products, accounting for 30% (4153/13637) of products, many of which were non-essential. CONCLUSIONS: Non-registration of essential medicines is a barrier to availability. Over-registration of medicines, particularly non-essential medicines, diverts regulatory resources towards registering non-priority and, sometimes, clinically sub-optimal medicines. The East African Community Medicines Registration Harmonization Project has the potential to improve access to key medicines if registration of essential medicines is prioritised and registration of non-essential medicines is restricted.

A systematic review on academic research productivity of postgraduate students in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: While several individual studies addressing research productivity of post-graduate students are available, a synthesis of effective strategies to increase productivity and the determinants of productivity in low-income countries has not been undertaken. Further, whether or not this research from post-graduate students' projects was applied in evidence-informed decision-making was unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of literature to identify and assess the effectiveness of approaches that increase productivity (proportion published) or the application (proportion cited) of post-graduate students' research, as well as to assess the determinants of post-graduate students' research productivity and use. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review as per our a priori published protocol, also registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016042819). We searched for published articles in PubMed/MEDLINE and the ERIC databases through to July 2017. We performed duplicate assessments for included primary studies and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Thereafter, we completed a structured narrative synthesis and, for a subset of studies, we performed a meta-analysis of the findings using both fixed and random effects approaches. We aligned our results to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: We found 5080 articles in the PubMed (n = 3848) and ERIC (n = 1232) databases. After excluding duplicates (n = 33), we screened 5047 articles, of which 5012 were excluded. We then retrieved 44 full texts and synthesised 14, of which 4 had a high risk of bias. We did not find any studies assessing effectiveness of strategies for increasing publication nor citations of post-graduate research projects. We found an average publication proportion of 7% (95% CI 7-8%, Higgins I-squared 0.0% and Cochran's Q p < 0.01) and 23% (95% CI 17-29%, Higgins I-squared of 98.4% and Cochran's Q, p < 0.01) using fixed effects and random effects models, respectively. Two studies reported on the citation of post-graduate students' studies, at 17% (95% CI 15-19%) in Uganda and a median citation of 1 study in Turkey (IQR 0.6-2.3). Only one included study reported on the determinants of productivity or use of post-graduate students' research, suggesting that younger students were more likely to publish and cohort studies were more likely to be published. CONCLUSIONS: We report on the low productivity of post-graduate students' research in low- and middle-income countries, including the citation of post-graduate students' research in evidence-informed health policy in low- and middle-income countries. Secondly, we did not find a single study that assessed strategies to increase productivity and use of post-graduate students' research in evidence-informed health policy, a subject for future research.