Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Uzochukwu, B. S.
Right arrow Articles by Akpala, C. O
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Uzochukwu, B. S.
Right arrow Articles by Akpala, C. O

Health Policy and Planning; 17(4): 378-383
© Oxford University Press 2002

Effect of the Bamako-Initiative drug revolving fund on availability and rational use of essential drugs in primary health care facilities in south-east Nigeria

Benjamin SC Uzochukwu1, Obinna E Onwujekwe2 and Cyril O Akpala1,3

1 Department of Community Medicine, University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital,
2 Health Policy Research Unit, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, College of Medicine, University of Nigeria, Enugu-campus, and
3 National Primary Health Care Development Agency, Zone A Headquarters, Enugu, Nigeria

Objectives: To compare the level of availability and rational use of drugs in primary health care (PHC) facilities where the Bamako Initiative (BI) drug revolving fund programme has been operational, with PHC centres where the BI-type of drug revolving fund programme is not yet operational.

Methods: The study was undertaken in 21 PHC centres with BI drug revolving funds and 12 PHC centres without BI drug revolving funds, all in Enugu State of Nigeria. Data were collected on the essential and non-essential drugs stocked by the facilities. Drug use was determined through analyses of prescriptions in each health centre. Finally, the proportion of consumers that were able to remember their dosing schedules was determined.

Findings: An average of 35.4 essential drugs was available in the BI health centres compared with 15.3 in the non-BI health centres (p < 0.05). The average drug-stock was adequate for 6.3 weeks in the BI health centres, but for 1.1 weeks in non-BI health centres (p < 0.05). More injections (64.7 vs. 25.6%) and more antibiotics (72.8 vs. 38%) were prescribed in BI health centres than in the non-BI health centres (p < 0.05). The BI health centres had an average of 5.3 drugs per prescription against 2.1 in the non-BI health centres. However, the drugs prescribed by generic name and from the essential drug list were higher in the BI health centres (80 and 93%) than the non-BI health centres (15.5 and 21%, respectively) (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: It was observed that the BI facilities had a better availability of essential drugs both in number and in average stock. However, the BI has given rise to more drug prescribing, which could be irrational. The findings call for strategies to ensure more availability of essential drugs especially in the non-BI PHC centres as a strategy to decrease medical costs and improve the quality of PHC services, while promoting rational drug use in all PHC centres. More detailed studies (for example, by focus group discussion or structured interviews) should be undertaken to find out reasons for the over-prescription and to develop future interventions to correct this.






Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.