Search

The first version of the World Health Organization Model list of essential medicines contained 186 medicines in 1977 and has evolved to include 502 medicines in 2023. Over time, different articles criticized the methods and process for decisions; however, the list holds global relevance as a model list to over 150 national lists. Given the global use of the model list, reflecting on its future role is imperative to understand how the list should evolve and respond to the needs of Member States. In 2023, the model list Expert Committee recommended the World Health Organization (WHO) to initiate a process to revise the procedures for updating the model list and the criteria guiding decisions. Here, we offer an agenda outlining priority areas and a vision for an authoritative model list. The main areas include improving transparency and trustworthiness of the recommendations; strengthening connection to national lists; and continuing the debate on the principles that should guide the model list, in particular the role of cost and price of essential medicines. These reflections are intended to support efforts ensuring the continued impact of this policy tool. [phrase omitted] La premiere version de la Liste modele des medicaments essentiels de l'OMS, publiee par l'Organisation mondiale de la Sante, repertoriait 186 medicaments en 1977 et s'est enrichie jusqu'a en inclure 502 en 2023. Au fil du temps, differents articles ont critique ses methodes et processus decisionnels; toutefois, elle reste importante au niveau mondial, servant de reference a plus de 150 listes nationales. Compte tenu de l'usage international qui en est fait, il est imperatif de reflechir a sa fonction future afin de comprendre comment elle peut evoluer et repondre aux besoins des Etats Membres. En 2023, le Comite d'experts charge de la liste modele a recommande a l'OMS de se lancer dans la revision des procedures de mise a jour de cette liste, ainsi que des criteres appliques aux decisions. Dans le present document, nous proposons un programme qui definit les priorites et les perspectives d'avenir pour que la liste fasse autorite. Parmi les principaux domaines abordes figurent l'amelioration de la transparence et de la fiabilite des recommandations, le renforcement des liens avec les listes nationales et la poursuite du debat sur les principes qui devraient orienter la liste modele, en particulier le role joue par les couts et les prix des medicaments essentiels. Ces reflexions ont pour but de soutenir les efforts permettant a cet instrument politique de conserver son impact. [phrase omitted] La primera version de la Lista Modelo OMS de Medicamentos Esenciales contenia 186 medicamentos en 1977 y ha evolucionado hasta incluir 502 medicamentos en 2023. Con el tiempo, diferentes articulos criticaron los metodos y el proceso de decision; sin embargo, la lista conserva su relevancia mundial como lista modelo para mas de 150 listas nacionales. Dado el uso global de la lista modelo, es imperativo reflexionar sobre su funcion futura para comprender como debe evolucionar la lista y responder a las necesidades de los Estados Miembros. En 2023, el Comite de Expertos de la lista modelo recomendo a la OMS que iniciara un proceso para revisar los procedimientos de actualizacion de la lista modelo y los criterios que guian las decisiones. En este documento, se ofrece un programa en el que se describen las areas prioritarias y la vision de una lista modelo oficial. Entre las principales areas se incluyen la mejora de la transparencia y la fiabilidad de las recomendaciones, el refuerzo de la conexion con las listas nacionales y la continuacion del debate sobre los principios que deben guiar la lista modelo, en particular sobre la funcion del coste y el precio de los medicamentos esenciales. El objetivo de estas reflexiones es apoyar los esfuerzos que aseguren el impacto continuado de esta herramienta politica., Introduction The World Health Organization model list of essential medicines is almost 50 years old. The model list is a normative product of the World Health Organization (WHO), aimed at [...]

BackgroundMost of the disability-related scholarly literature focuses on high-income countries, whereas there is a lack of data concerning challenges (barriers and obstacles) and opportunities (participatory research and community engagement) in the Global South. Moreover, many frameworks for interventions for people with disabilities (PWDs) have been designed for resource-rich contexts, and little is known about their translatability to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).ObjectiveThe main objective of this study was to design and pilot an interventional approach based on an innovative framework aimed at improving the livelihood of PWDs in LMICs.MethodologyThe present mixed-method study was conducted in Bamenda, North-West Region of Cameroon, through an intervention of household visits by community health workers using innovation and best practices informed by a systematic literature review and embedded into an evidence toolkit called the eBASE Family-Centered Evidence Toolkit for Disabilities (EFCETD), adapted from the WHO matrix and consisting of 43 questions across five categories (health, education, social wellbeing, empowerment, and livelihood). Out of 56 PWDs identified, 30 were randomly sampled, with an attrition of four participants. Three datasets (baseline, qualitative, and quantitative) were collected. The Washington Group tool, exploring the type of disability, gender, how long one has had the disability, their facility situation coupled with their coping strategies, and the context of livelihood, was used to design the questionnaire for baseline data collection. Qualitative data were collected through key informant interviews and focus group discussions analyzed with MAXQDA, while quantitative data were collected through the EFCETD and analyzed by means of descriptive statistics.ResultsIn total, 69.2% of PWDs were female individuals. Many PWDs were aged 10–20 years (57% of the sample size). Physical/motor disability was the most common type of disability recorded (84.6%). The mean percentile for education increased from 29.9% during the first visit to 70.2% during the last visit, while the mean percentile for health increased from 65.4 to 78.7% and the mean percentile for social wellbeing moved from 73.1 to 84.9%. The livelihood and empowerment standards increased from 16.3 to 37.2% and from 27.7 to 65.8%, respectively. Overall, the temporal trend was statistically significant (F = 35.11, p

Background: Increasing evidence has emerged for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) to treat COVID-19 which requires systematic summaries of the net benefits of interventions against standard care and one another. The study aims to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) regarding TCIM therapies for treating mild/moderate acute COVID-19, potentially informing the WHO guideline development and clinical decision-making., Methods and Analysis: We will search Embase, MEDLINE, Virtual Health Library on Traditional Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform with additional searches of Chinese and Korean literature sources for randomised controlled trials comparing TCIM with placebo, standard care, no treatment or with an alternate type of TCIM to treat COVID-19. We will limit the search dates from 2020 to 28 March 2024. Reviewers will, in duplicate, screen eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the risk of bias. We will conduct frequentist network meta-analyses for network comparisons and each outcome. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach and classify interventions from most to least effective or harmful., Ethics and Dissemination: This NMA is based on the existing trials and data which is not subject to ethical approval. We will publish the NMA in a peer-reviewed journal. This may provide methodological reference and clinical evidence for TCIM on future epidemic-prone diseases., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42024517321., Competing Interests: Competing interests: We would like to disclose that Dr. Guyatt Gordon and Dr. Thabane Lehana are listed as members of the Editorial Board of BMJ Open, as noted on their website (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/pages/editorial-board). This association has been declared in accordance with the journal’s submission policies. All other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to declare related to this submission., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)