Search Results

31 items found

Blog Posts (10)

  • The Elusive Quality of Medical Products in Global Health

    Just a little announcement to share that I've had my first academic paper published! The full text of Elusive Quality: the Challenges and Ethical Dilemmas faced by international Non-Governmental Organisations in Sourcing Quality Assured Medical Products is available in a Special Issue (Social and ethical issues of poor quality and poor use of medical products) in BMJ Global Health. Please have a read and get in touch with me to share your thoughts. Thanks for reading and visiting GPX! Please feel free to share your thoughts and comments about the article below. Also, if you'd like to stay in the loop, please join GPX's (new!) Facebook page and our community of practice on this site. Many thanks to Jan Kopřiva on Unsplash for the cover photo.

  • Figuring it out: exploring metrics in Global Health

    As I embark upon a large qualitative research project, I've been thinking a lot about metrics. I've been thinking about what we measure (and how sometimes reality differs from intention!), about how we measure it, about the value that this imparts onto it and about what it means to be a qualitative researcher in a quantitative world. In this post, I wanted to share some of my initial thoughts about the pros and cons of metrics in global health. There's a short bibliography at the end, but I'd really appreciate your recommendations for further reading on the subject. I'd also love to hear your thoughts and feedback on my summary so far. What do we mean by metrics? Global Health metrics seek to translate the status (and trends) of complex, shifting and multi-faceted ethnographic circumstances into a manageable, malleable and memorable quantitative format through the use of indicators. It occurs to me that the process of reducing rich and nuanced occurrences into a handful of digits is akin to a siren-like beauty: the idea is beguiling but can be treacherous if trusted without question. Keeping Count The discipline of global health has evolved in conjunction with the rise of quantitative data (i.e. inventories, statistics, metrics, indicators and numerical goal-setting). Before dissecting the relative merits and problems with this, I think it's useful to reflect upon the sheer extent to which metrics are woven into the fabric of our world’s health systems, as one can become blind to normative practices when they are familiar. So let's have a quick think about some of the myriad ways in which we use (and are used by?) numbers: Indicators and metrics guide governments in both determining and communicating priorities and resource allocation to national health providers. In a global setting, metrics are used for measuring the baseline of, and progress beyond, key health issues (and a plethora of non-health related issues such as poverty or corruption, for example). This information not only directs the policy and priority of global health organisations, it influences investments, trading, and the global economic market as a whole. Metrics are utilised by donors (institutional and philanthropic alike) to hold recipient organisations to account, frequently in combination with hefty incentives and reprisals. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are a high-profile example of this: a powerful donor with a zealot-like belief that quantitative data and financial incentives are key to solving global health challenges. Metrics are a powerful tool of advocacy groups, think-tanks and researchers for influencing change. Consider the Access to Medicines Index, which has impressively shifted the behaviour of pharmaceutical behemoths in a short span, through the use of indicators, analysis, public reporting and thereby the generation of competition. Metrics are used heavily in research and academia where there is sometimes a propensity for quantitative studies to be considered more serious and scientific than qualitative ones. This is reflected in journals like the Lancet, for example: a highly-respected and widely-read journal, which is a strong proponent of metrics. Pervasive, to say the least. With this in mind then, let us explore the positive and detrimental impact of metrics. Photo by Stephen Dawson on Unsplash The benefits of Global Health metrics As pithily stated by Shiffman and Shawar, “the inherent allure of metrics [is] their ease of use and their alleged capacity to render legible complex worlds” (1). The value of this is undeniable (by all but the most ardent critics) because it enables information to be utilised and applied in a manner that is not feasible (or at least practical) with qualitative data. Through the generation of a number, our “complex world” is reified into a single reference that can be manipulated through calculation and communicated with ease. Based on my experiences, and through my initial readings, I think the benefits of metrics could be summarised and grouped as follows. So, what's all the fuss about numbers? Calculation. Firstly, they allow us to conduct processes (e.g. budgeting, or risk management) that would otherwise be less effective, or even unworkable, without numbers. Such fundamental activities are core to “business as usual” for most health organisations. Moreover, certain disciplines are entirely dependent on, or characterised by, their use of statistical analysis (epidemiology, or quantitative research, for example). Motivation. Secondly, information becomes compelling. Numbers are simple, memorable, and easy to communicate (relative to other forms of data). There is also evidence to indicate that individuals tend to be more willing to trust quantitative data, as it is more likely to be viewed as scientific (1). As a result, information shared in this manner tends to resonate with the audience and thus it is a powerful tool for those wishing to gain attention or exert change. Competition. Thirdly, it facilitates comparison. Distillation of an issue into a single, solid figure, removes extraneous factors, bypasses ambiguity, and creates a tangible and actionable output. An obvious application of this is to track the progress of an issue over time. Another benefit is that it creates scope for rankings and competition. This benefit is readily used by employers, campaigners, regulators and numerous global actors to, often publicly, urge change or alignment with a cause. Liberation. Fourthly, it is emancipatory. Impartial measurement can map issues and shine a light on problems that may otherwise be marginalised, in a manner that may be challenging to deny (1). Communication. Fifthly, it enables engagement with a non-technical audience. While an individual may lack the competence or time to engage with a subject, complex ideas, issues and circumstances can be rapidly communicated and discussed. In my experience, this is often of particular value when dealing with the public or when liaising with senior management. Obligation. Finally, it creates accountability. Numbers allow a systematic and objective consideration of an activity or outcome that provides a dispassionate and apparently unbiased picture of performance. "When counting, try not to mix chickens with blessings." Leonardo da Vinci The problem with Global Health metrics However, and rather obviously, there are drawbacks to metrics that not only undermine all of these benefits, but also that may have an actively detrimental impact on global health. These could be described as follows: Abstraction. Similarly to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, metrics are a shadow of reality, dancing on the cave wall of our understanding. The methods of data collection, and of imputation, are often opaque. In addition, as discussed, the numbers (and indicators) themselves are “products of social processes heavily reliant on interpretation” (1). However, through ignorance or inability, there is a risk that these abstracted figures are confidently used and applied as if they are complete and specific. Over-Simplification. Metrics are reductive by intention. However, it strikes me that quantifying human experience – particularly human suffering – is a somewhat grotesque and heartless activity. It, according to Fukuda-Parr, “redefines [the concept] to a utilitarian perspective” (2) and in so doing, it undermines an individual’s lived experience. She exemplifies this statement by considering poverty: metrics may describe it in terms of income, but this is wholly unsuited to conveying the dehumanisation experienced by begging or prostitution (2). Generalisation. Metrics involves gathering data from an array of cases and analysing them as a cohort. The results are used to make generalised observations, declarations and decisions and, in so doing, ignore nuance, quirks and specificities. Tichenor and Sridhar question “the larger ramifications of practices of standardization, data correction, and imputation… particularly with the goal of making local contexts readable from a satellite’s view of the world” (3). They point to the problem of universalising experience and applying the results to national or district health services without local adaptation. This issue is particularly problematic for the Global South and may result in the presumptive implementation of inappropriate interventions (3). Individualisation. Counterintuitively, metrics can both be generalised and individualised. Since the 1960s there has, broadly, been a reframing of metrics and global goals into person-centred measurements and targets. Although this humanisation of data is not entirely regrettable, some birds-eye analysis of (and interest in) global issues has been lost (2). For example, moving the narrative from economic development to an impact on livelihoods can mean that a macroeconomic understanding of the issue is neglected. Information. Global data sets have the potential to subvert the establishment of national information systems (1). Over the last three decades, as globilisation, humanitarianism and economic development have matured, metrics have shifted from an organisational tool to a world-wide industry. Massive data sets are gathered, analysed and communicated on a global stage and, whilst this data may not be intended for national decision-making, it is predictable that it has disincentivised the creation of individual governmental health information systems in some lower income countries (1). As a result, effected countries may lack the national or local knowledge required to make suitably adapted decisions (regarding intervention, priority, or resource allocation, for example) (1). In addition, this contributes to a lack of local data analysis skills, due to a lack of opportunity and investment to build this capacity (3). Finally, it also means that the open-source data sets used by a country are not actually owned by it, which can have implications for the interpretation and analysis of it (as full knowledge of collection, imputation and calculation methods are unlikely to be available). Domination. Whilst considering large data sets (used to measure and track global burden of disease, international development goals, or country comparators, for example) we should question who determines the indicators that are used. These are, inevitably, large organisations (such as a UN agency or the World Bank), wealthy organisations (such as donors or private firms), or High-Income Countries situated in the Northern hemisphere. Even if we assume that indicators are selected by these parties for purely altruistic purposes, the outcome is a shift of power: from designated to designator, from low-income to high-income entity. This results in global attention being focussed on those conditions and causes that the privileged consider to be worthy – and, similarly, to be measured by indicators that they believe to be representative. This paternalistic exclusion of relevant actors creates, according to Shiffman and Shawar, an “uneven playing field” (1). It is this same “uneven playing field” that prevents these metrics being corrected and optimised through scrutiny and iteration. Not only will differing perspectives have a smaller platform and be less likely to be heard, but alignment around them is driven via financial incentives or social pressure. Public ratings and comparisons create the potential for reputational damage, which in turn coerces a State or organisation to align with these designated priorities. Trust. According to Shiffman and Shawar, critics of metrics feel that they “present a scientific veneer to a contingent undertaking, and thus acquire an authoritativeness [that] they do not deserve” (1). While their compelling and motivating nature is acknowledged as a benefit in this paper, the flip side is a skewing effect that it holds on the sector (as is manifest in several of the points already mentioned). While anyone can digest metrics and graphs at face value, the critical thinking and interrogative scepticism needed to interpret and act upon them are learned skills. This, inevitably, leads to the politicisation of metrics. Numbers can be presented and manipulated to great effect to mobilise support and resources for a campaign, to undermine a competitor’s reputation, or to disingenuously present results, for example. The scale of this unearned legitimacy is perhaps most simply summarised by the adage: “Lies, damn lies, and statistics”. Force. Finally, and as is evident across all of these points, metrics possess a force (for influence seems too weak a term). The aforementioned negative aspects result in a host of negative consequences and – as forceful as they are – not only measure global health, but shape it in their own right. First, as stated, metrics can create alignment around, and have a substantial influence on, strategy, prioritisation and the allocation of resource. This has the effect of supplanting national/organisational strategic processes of prioritisation and therefore interfering with internal structures, mechanisms, and outputs. Secondly, and equally significantly, metrics impact things that are not measured. As only a limited number of indicators can be tracked, this effectively both narrows and silos global focus (thereby further influencing the global agenda). Furthermore, regarding what is not measured, it sends a tacit message in respect of its worth(lessness) – and therefore of the issues and experiences that it seeks to represent. For example, when the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) chose not to include access to reproductive health as a measure (believing that that this was sufficiently covered by poverty reduction and maternal mortality) they failed to recognise the struggle and significance that this has on the rights and capabilities of women (2). Given the influence of global targets in setting national agendas, it is easy to see how such an omission can (negatively) impact initiatives and subsequently alter their course. Thirdly, the existence of data (or the potential for it) is influential. Where it exists, it begs to be researched. This has an impact on the popularity of quantifiable issues, which in all likelihood leads to their increased discussion, readership and scientific progress. Furthermore, where an intervention can be measured, it may be preferentially implemented. For example, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is a cornerstone of NHS mental health intervention. Its measurability has undoubtedly contributed to this status – a trait that more traditional (yet potentially more effective) forms of talking therapy do not share. This creates a “technocratic agenda” and can medicalise issues that should instead be progressed via social, educational or alternative interventions (1). Fourthly, there is a general human (and organisational) preference for metrics over other forms of data. This privileges that “form of knowledge…[over] those that cannot be quantified” (1). This has a directing effect on interventions, research, publications and public support. Fifthly, finally, and most profoundly, metrics have the potential to shape our perspective on reality. They categorise the world and in doing so they define and shape it, by delineating how it should be categorised, considered and valued. Final thought Given the pervasiveness of metrics in Global Health, it is not a stretch to assert that they (and the indicators from which they are derived) have the potential to shape every facet of healthcare, in every corner of the world. However, how this potential is realised is, of course, dependent upon how the numbers are interpreted and applied. References & Bibliography (1) Shiffman J, Shawar YR. Strengthening accountability of the global health metrics enterprise. The Lancet (British edition) 2020;395(10234):1452-56. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30416-5 (2) Fukuda-Parr S. Global Goals as a Policy Tool: Intended and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 2014;15(2-3):118-31. doi: 10.1080/19452829.2014.910180 (3) Tichenor M, Sridhar D. Metric partnerships: global burden of disease estimates within the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Wellcome Open Research 2020;4(35) doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15011.2 Adams V. Metrics : what counts in global health. Durham, [North Carolina] ; London, [England]: Duke University Press 2016. Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research 2001;11(4):522-37. doi: 10.1177/104973201129119299 Thanks for reading and visiting GPX! Please feel free to share your thoughts and comments about the article below. Also, if you'd like to stay in the loop, please join GPX's (new!) Facebook page and our community of practice on this site. Cover photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash - with thanks.

  • Exploring the Genuine Fake

    Imagine that, as you're reading this, you're doing so from a low income country. (Indeed, perhaps you are!) Now imagine that we are joined by a family with a very young daughter, who has been diagnosed with pneumonia. The situation is grave and the family are concerned because the last two courses of antibiotics have failed to work. The doctors are unable to explain why, as the medicines have been Quality Assured by the government. Perhaps it's antimicrobial resistance? Perhaps the medicines have been stored incorrectly and have degraded? Perhaps they've expired and the vendor altered the label? Perhaps they're fake? Perhaps... well there are a host of possible reasons. For now let's focus on the real problem: a dying child, without access to basic, effective treatments, because of where she lives. It is estimated that 10.5% of medicines in low- and middle- income countries are fake or substandard (1). This is unsurprising, and possibly an underestimate, given that nearly 75% of governments are not considered to have a “stable, well-functioning and integrated regulatory system” (2). Let's return to our story. There's hope: the family are informed of a nearby clinic that can provide treatment. However, the clinic operates outside of the State-sponsored health system and, it is whispered, smuggles in its medicines from a neighbouring country. These medicines are real yet illegitimate: Quality Assured by one country, but not approved by this one. Who is right? What should the family do...? This scenario highlights how concepts like "quality" can be subjective and how authenticity is not necessarily binary. It also provides a small snapshot into the kind of dilemmas that uncertainty can cause in global health - for patients, doctors and regulators alike. I explore these ideas, and the notion of the "Genuine Fake", in this podcast with Assoc Prof Patricia Kingori - please have a listen (it's about 15 mins long) and leave a comment below or on GPX's new Facebook page. I'd love to hear your thoughts and your own stories. References 1. A Study on the Public Health and Socioeconomic Impact of Substandard and Falsified Medical Products. Geneva: World Health Organization (2017). {Available at: https://www.who.int/medicines/regulation/ssffc/publications/se-study-sf/en/ } 2. Khadem Broojerdi A, Baran Sillo H, Ostad Ali Dehaghi R, et al. The World Health Organization Global Benchmarking Tool an Instrument to Strengthen Medical Products Regulation and Promote Universal Health Coverage. Frontiers in Medicine 2020;7(457) doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00457 {Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.00457/full } {For information about the WHO's Global Benchmarking Assessment Tool, head to: https://www.who.int/medicines/regulation/benchmarking_tool/en/ } Thanks for reading and visiting GPX! I'm currently researching these issues at the University of Oxford, with the kind support of the Wellcome Trust. If you'd like to stay in the loop, please join GPX's (new!) Facebook page and the community on this site.

View All

Pages (16)

  • 2021 | gpexchange

    Welcome The problem of poor-quality medicines and medical devices represents a global public health emergency – and one that is not showing signs of abating. Although it is impossible to gain accurate estimates of the scale of the issue, experts gauge that 10% to 30% of medical products in global circulation are either falsified or substandard. In recent years, a proliferation of new technologies have sought to tackle this problem - from sophisticated end-to-end blockchain solutions, to simple text messaging services for patients. Although these innovations are widely implemented (and may impact clinical decisions, health policies, and create opportunities for quantifiable research) the options available, and their role in decision-making, is still somewhat confusing. This event seeks to bring together innovators, researchers, and those with an interest in medical product quality to explore the landscape of technologies that are used to tackle substandard and falsified medical products, through talks, exhibitions, real-world stories, and remote networking opportunities. Technologies to Tackle Substandard & Falsified Medical Products in Global Health Online 9 - 11 Nov 2021 Talks 9 Nov 21: Is there a 'technological fix' to the problem of SF medical products? Prof Muhammad Zaman, University of Boston BIO HERE 9 Nov 21: Portable Screening Devices for post marketing surveillance of medicines quality in the Lao PDR Dr Céline Caillet, Deputy Head of Medicine Quality Research Group Dr Céline Caillet is the Deputy Head of the Medicine Quality Research Group (MQRG) of the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory, MORU Tropical Health Network and the Center for Tropical Medicine and Global Health of the University of Oxford. She is a pharmacist and former resident of the Hospital of Toulouse. Following her MSc in Epidemiology and Public Health in Bordeaux, France, Céline completed her PhD in drug safety in Laos. Before joining the MQRG team, she did research on drug safety at the Regional Center of Pharmacovigilance of Toulouse, France. She also taught pharmacology at the Faculty of Medicine of Toulouse, and during her PhD in the Department of Pharmacy at the University of Health Sciences, Vientiane. She joined the MQRG team in 2015 in Laos and is now based in Oxford, UK. She is particularly interested in the epidemiology of substandard and falsified medicines and testing the performances of screening technologies for early detection of substandard and falsified medicines. 10 Nov 21: Field-friendly methods for screening and detecting SF medical products Dr Harparkash Kaur, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. 10 Nov 21: Implementing detection technologies in low-resource settings Prof Dr Lutz Heide & Gesa Gnegel, University of Tübingen. Prof. Dr. Lutz Heide (* 1955) studied pharmacy at the University of Münster. After receiving his doctorate, he worked for three years in the Ministry of Health of Somalia, where he managed the supply of essential medicines for primary health care in refugee camps. After a postdoctoral period at the University of Kyoto, Japan, he became an assistant and then an associate professor at the Pharmaceutical Institutes of the Universities of Bonn and Freiburg. Since 1994, he has been a full professor at the Pharmaceutical Institute of the University of Tübingen. On leave from this university and under a contract with the German Development Cooperation (GIZ/CIM), he worked for two years (2014/2015) at the Pharmaceutical Institute of the University of Malawi. There he taught Drug & Medical Supplies Management and carried out research on the quality of essential medicines in Malawi. Since 2016 he has been responsible at the University of Tübingen for research and teaching in the field of Pharmaceutical Global Health. Specifically, he investigates the problems of substandard and falsified medicines drugs, the availability and pricing of medicines as well as the challenges of health supply chain management in low- and middle-income countries. ---------------- Gesa Gnegel studied pharmacy at the Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, and the University of Costa Rica, San José. In a research semester in Costa Rica she investigated natural compounds of a local medical plant, Casearia sylvestris. During her internship year she worked for the German medical aid organization action medeor e.V. as well as in the pharmacy Linner Apotheke. She obtained her license as a pharmacist (Approbation) in November 2018. After working at the German Institute for Medical Mission (Difäm) for half a year, she started her PhD project at Tübingen University in July 2019 under a scholarship from the Cusanuswerk, still keeping links to the Department for Pharmaceutical Development Cooperation of Difäm. The aim of her PhD project is to improve our knowledge about the quality of medicines in African countries, in close cooperation with local partner organizations. 11 Nov 21: Connecting the Dots: information exchange to tackle SF medical products Michael Deats, Formerly WHO & MHRA. 11 Nov 21: Balancing act: safeguarding quality & maximising accessibility as a national regulator Rutendo Kawana, WHO & ZimHealth Out of gallery Recordings of the talks will be available here, following the event. Stories The Elusive Quality of Medical Products in Global Health Just a little announcement to share that I've had my first academic paper published! The full text of Elusive Quality: the Challenges and... 0 comments 1 like. Post not marked as liked 1 Figuring it out: exploring metrics in Global Health As I embark upon a large qualitative research project, I've been thinking a lot about metrics. I've been thinking about what we measure... 0 comments 2 likes. Post not marked as liked 2 Exploring the Genuine Fake This scenario highlights how concepts like "quality" can be subjective and how authenticity is not necessarily binary. It also provides a sm 0 comments 4 likes. Post not marked as liked 4 Introducing... Morphine Sulphate - it's dreamy! As far as we are aware, there are three different opioid receptors in the body: mu (µ), delta (δ) and kappa (κ). This is interesting for a 0 comments 3 likes. Post not marked as liked 3 Introducing... Ferrous Sulphate - it's riveting! As you may know, iron is contained within a large protein known as haemoglobin. Haemoglobin is produced in the liver and bone marrow. 0 comments 2 likes. Post not marked as liked 2 Introducing... Benzylpenicillin - it's cracking! peptidoglycan is the body of the yo-yo, while the amino acid chain is the flailing string. As you would expect, on their own, a cluster of 0 comments 2 likes. Post not marked as liked 2 Introducing... Salbutamol - it's inspirational! Your lungs resemble a tree. The trunk is akin to your trachea (or windpipe), while the branches are like the bronchi, which gradually reduc 0 comments 2 likes. Post not marked as liked 2 All the world's a stage... Yesterday I had the pleasure of advising on content for an international pharmacy conference. It got me thinking... what would you do if... 0 comments 3 likes. Post not marked as liked 3 Are Low Income Countries on the frontline of our war against Antimicrobial Resistance? Happy Antibiotic Awareness Week (13th - 19th November 2017)! "A whole WEEK?" Well if that sounds excessive, perhaps you didn't realise... 0 comments 2 likes. Post not marked as liked 2 Emergency Medical Teams: exploring the role of pharmacy & medical supply chain experts I've recently become more involved with an "Emergency Medical Team" (a World Health Organisation (WHO) initiative) and am struck by the... 5 comments 4 likes. Post not marked as liked 4 Exhibition

  • Events | gpexchange

    Register Technologies to tackle substandard and falsified (SF) medical products in global health 1400 - 1600 hrs GMT Online 9 - 11 November 2021 What's On? Talks 3 days, 6 talks, 7 global experts. Exhibition Posters . Abstracts. Pitches. White papers. Stories YOUR experiences of SF medical products. Networking Tools and apps for remote networking. Talks Join us via Zoom to hear our speakers and engage in discussions. ​ Webinars will commence at 1400 hrs GMT and end at 1600 hrs GMT. ​ Prof Muhammad Zaman University of Boston Is there a 'technological fix' to the problem of SF medical products? 9 November 2021 @ 1410 hrs (GMT) Gesa Gnegal Tubingen University Implementing detection technologies in low-resource settings 10 November 2021 @ 1500 hrs GMT Rutendo Kawana WHO & ZimHealth Balancing act: safeguarding quality & maximising accessibility as a national regulator 11 November 2021 @ 1500 hrs (GMT) Dr Celine Caillet University of Oxford Portable Screening Devices for post marketing surveillance of medicines quality in the Lao PDR 9 November 2021 @ 1500 hrs (GMT) Prof Dr Lutz Heide Tubingen University Implementing detection technologies in low-resource settings 10 November 2021 @ 1500 hrs (GMT) Kate Enright University of Oxford Event organiser. Moderator. Founder of GPX. Chair: 9-11 November 2021 Dr Harparkash Kaur London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Field-friendly methods for screening and detecting SF medical products 10 November 2021 @ 1410 hrs (GMT) Michael Deats Formerly of WHO & MHRA Connecting the Dots: information exchange to tackle SF medical products 11 November 2021 @ 1410 hrs (GMT) You! Share your story. Exhibit your work. See below for details. Delegate: 9 - 11 November Join Stories Storytelling is a powerful and inclusive method of teaching and influencing. It has been around for millennia and can take many forms. Blogs Please share your stories and experiences of substandard or falsified medical products (or how you've tackled them). For example... How have you been affected by SF medical products? When did it feel personal? How does it change your practise? Why is this issue important to you? Pictures A picture paints a thousand words. ​ Share an image (photo, or photo of your artwork ) that captures the problem of substandard and falsified medical products, or showcases human innovation. Don't forget to give your picture a title and tell us the location. Podcasts Perhaps the spoken word is your forte. Tell your story - in your own words and in your own language . We'll do our best to transcribe it into a faithful English translation. ​ To arrange a recorded interview, click here . Your life is unique. Substandard and falsified (SF) medical products are a complex and multi-faceted problem. We share a common understanding, but we have experienced them in different ways. You are invited to share your story so that we: ​ + widen our collective understanding about SF medical products. + can better advocate about the problem. + identify exciting new collaborations between delegates. + inspire new ideas and, perhaps, new technologies. Learn more Submit Story Please submit your story by Thursday 4th November 2021 . We are particularly keen to receive submissions from delegates who live or work in the Global South. Exhibition Pitch your technology Innovator? Circulate your research Researcher? Visit the exhibition to view submissions, make comments, and ask questions. ​ ​ The exhibition will open at 1600 hrs GMT on Tuesday 9 November 2021. ​ Learn more Submit Exhibit Please submit your exhibit by Thursday 4th November 2021 . Register for the Event This event was inspired by Associate Professor Patricia Kingori and the "Fakes, Fabrications, & Falsehoods in Global Health" project that she leads. ​ Click HERE to learn more about the group and our research. ​ Many thanks to the Wellcome Trust for their support of this project.

  • Global Pharmacy Exchange / Connect...Collaborate...Create Change...

    Log In Global Pharmacy Exchange Connect. Collaborate. Create Change. Hello, Pharmacy Friends! At GPX, we believe that a more connected , more informed and more empowered pharmacy workforce will transform ​ #AccesstoMedicines The Problem We all have a right to health, and yet ​ nearly 2 billion people have no access to basic medicines. The Problem About 2 BILLION people have no access to basic medicines Ref Ten Years in Public Health 2007 - 2017 (WHO) It is impossible to have humanity and not be outraged by this. What can you do? On your own? Not much, probably. ​ But together? Well... we could be unstoppable. ​ ​ ________________________ ​ "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead ________________________ ​ ​ ​ The bad news is that there is no one, single solution. ​ The good news is that small, everyday actions - your actions - can make a difference. ​ Change doesn't just require... it requires all of us to speak up and speak out with confidence Spectacular Global Campaigns Change requires you. it requires all of us to thoughtfully measure performance and seek for a better tomorrow Ground-Breaking Research Change requires you. it requires community Celebrity Support it requires all of us to make incessant, small nudges to gradually improve procurement and medicines management practices Grand Initiatives Change requires you. Change requires you. it requires all of us to waste less and spend what we have more wisely Immense Funds ... Change requires you. Global Pharmacy Exchange At GPX, we believe in the power of community. We believe that a connected informed & empowered community of pharmacy professionals (and their champions) can solve the injustice of inequitable access to quality medicines. Join us

View All

Forum Posts (5)

  • Diphtheria Response - Bangladesh

    Hi Global Pharm-ers Advice please! I'm currently supporting a emergency response to the diphtheria outbreak in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a really challenging country for pharmaceutical importation, plus there are Quality Assurance concerns for national market procurement. I've found that there are several production lines with European regulatory approval (i.e. manufacturers) which is great, but we'll need to procure via a distributor. I was hoping for advice/recommendations about which wholesalers or distributors to approach (or stay away from)! Thanks! Kate

  • Diphtheria Response - Bangladesh

    A quick note to say thanks very much to Hasan - one of our Global Pharm-ers - who sent me the following help in a private message: "To purchase from local supplier there is no distributor in Bangladesh. The manufacturer has own distribution channel nationwide. So far my understanding you can purchase directly from the manufacturer." Thanks, Hasan - I really appreciate your support! :) 

  • Diphtheria Response - Bangladesh

    You are Welcome Kate! We are here in Bangladesh working for Emergency Diptheria response. So, don't hesitate to reach me for any queries or support . Best wishes for new year!

View All