Unused medicine take-back programmes: a systematic review.

IF 3.3 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2024-09-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20523211.2024.2395535
Leong Seng Wang, Zoriah Aziz, Ee Syuen Wang, Zamri Chik
{"title":"Unused medicine take-back programmes: a systematic review.","authors":"Leong Seng Wang, Zoriah Aziz, Ee Syuen Wang, Zamri Chik","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2024.2395535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Improper disposal of unused medicine can impact the environment causing significant healthcare and financial burdens. While the medicine take-back programme is an effective management strategy, its effectiveness differs across countries. This study aimed to systematically review the take-back programmes in various countries and to identify areas needing improvement for programme enhancement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted searches in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, from database inception to June 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 27 studies spanning 15 countries' medicine take-back programmes. While some programmes, mostly observed in the USA, were conducted at the local level with non-health-associated facilities, others were done at the national level within healthcare facilities. The cost of collected medicines ranged from US$7,416 to US$1,118,020, primarily involving medicines related to the nervous system, cardiovascular system, alimentary tract, and metabolism. Legislations pertaining to these programmes were available in the USA, most European countries, and Mexico, but unavailable in Spain, Austria, Australia, and New Zealand. However, despite this, the government or the industry in these countries managed the programmes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Well-structured take-back programmes featuring easily accessible collection points, regular collection schedules, clear programme ownership, with legislation defining financial responsibilities, showed positive outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":"17 1","pages":"2395535"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11385643/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2024.2395535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Improper disposal of unused medicine can impact the environment causing significant healthcare and financial burdens. While the medicine take-back programme is an effective management strategy, its effectiveness differs across countries. This study aimed to systematically review the take-back programmes in various countries and to identify areas needing improvement for programme enhancement.

Methods: We conducted searches in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, from database inception to June 2023.

Results: The review included 27 studies spanning 15 countries' medicine take-back programmes. While some programmes, mostly observed in the USA, were conducted at the local level with non-health-associated facilities, others were done at the national level within healthcare facilities. The cost of collected medicines ranged from US$7,416 to US$1,118,020, primarily involving medicines related to the nervous system, cardiovascular system, alimentary tract, and metabolism. Legislations pertaining to these programmes were available in the USA, most European countries, and Mexico, but unavailable in Spain, Austria, Australia, and New Zealand. However, despite this, the government or the industry in these countries managed the programmes.

Conclusion: Well-structured take-back programmes featuring easily accessible collection points, regular collection schedules, clear programme ownership, with legislation defining financial responsibilities, showed positive outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
闲置药品回收计划:系统性综述。
背景:对未使用药品的不当处置会对环境造成影响,并带来巨大的医疗和经济负担。虽然药品回收计划是一项有效的管理策略,但各国的成效却不尽相同。本研究旨在系统回顾各国的药品回收计划,并找出需要改进的地方,以加强计划:方法:我们在 Medline、EMBASE、CINAHL、Web of Science、Scopus 和 Google Scholar 中进行了检索,检索时间从数据库建立之初至 2023 年 6 月:结果:综述包括 27 项研究,涉及 15 个国家的药品回收计划。有些计划(主要是在美国)是在地方层面的非医疗机构开展的,而其他计划则是在国家层面的医疗机构开展的。回收药品的成本从 7,416 美元到 1,118,020 美元不等,主要涉及与神经系统、心血管系统、消化道和新陈代谢有关的药品。美国、大多数欧洲国家和墨西哥都有与这些计划相关的立法,但西班牙、奥地利、澳大利亚和新西兰却没有。然而,尽管如此,这些国家的政府或行业仍在管理这些计划:结论:结构合理的回收计划具有易于到达的收集点、定期的收集时间表、明确的计划所有权以及界定财务责任的立法等特点,显示出积极的成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessment of community pharmacists' experiences and perceptions on gabapentin abuse in Jordan: a cross-sectional study. Assessment of knowledge, perceptions, and readiness of healthcare professionals towards clinical pharmacogenomics implementation in Qatar: a mixed-method study. Exploring Jordanian medical students' perceptions and concerns about ChatGPT in medical education: a cross-sectional study. Pharmaceutical multinational corporations (MNCs) and their exit from low and middle income countries (LMICs): analysing the causes and consequences. Prescriber perceptions of the safety and efficacy of unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin in the acute treatment phase: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1