Talk:Essential medicines

History of the concept

• Laing, Richard; Waning, Brenda; Gray, Andy; Ford, Nathan; 't Hoen, Ellen (May 2003). "25 years of the WHO essential medicines lists: progress and challenges". The Lancet. 361 (9370): 1723–1729. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13375-2.
• Antezana, Fernando; Seuba, Xavier (December 2009). Thirty Years of Essential Medicines: The Challenge (PDF). Valencia: Farma Mundi. ISBN 978-84-932496-3-2. Retrieved 6 March 2017.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Patent status

• Laing, Richard. "The patent status of medicines on the WHO model list of essential medicines" (PDF). wto.org. World Trade Organization. Retrieved 6 March 2017.
• Brachmann, Steve; Quinn, Gene (12 September 2016). "95 percent of WHO's essential medicines are off-patent| Patents & Patent Law". IPWatchdog.com. Retrieved 6 March 2017.
• Beall, Reed F (2016). "Global Challenges Brief Patents and the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (18th Edition): Clarifying the Debate on IP and Access" (PDF). wipo.int. World Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved 6 March 2017.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Impact

IMS Health (April 2016). "Understanding the Role and Use of Essential Medicines Lists" (PDF). IMS Health. Retrieved 6 March 2017.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Which list of essential medicines?

I was wondering if "essential medicines" was an ambiguous term, and that perhaps in addition to the WHO other organizations designated their own and different "essential medicines". I think it happens that individual countries can designate some medicines as essential for their region, if they like, and I think the WHO routinely recognizes this lists.

If there is ambiguity, then there could be a separate Wikipedia article for the "Essential medicines on the WHO model list". I think that would be the most defined way to have a discussion, because that is the list of medicines with the most version control. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is a general concept with national and regional lists. The WHOs list is most famous and many other lists are based off of it Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wenrivera, Caitlynaryan, Msalazar101, SahSaravanan (article contribs). Peer reviewers: P.Phan!pharmd26, Juupo23, Kris.ram7, Arnavsrastogi.

— Assignment last updated by Arnavsrastogi (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Plan: -add more information and fix the current wording -add 6 references each — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahSaravanan (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Plan

Add adult list

modify children list

Perehudoff, Katrina. "Universal access to essential medicines as part of the right to health: a cross-national comparison of national laws, medicines policies, and health system indicators." Global health action 13.1 (2020): 1699342. reference for access to essential medicines

Msalazar101 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sahana: talk about implementation and adaptation of WHO list of essential meds (National adaptation and implementation of WHO Model List of Essential Medicines: A qualitative evidence synthesis)

Caitlyn: add section on national laws (Essential Medicines in Universal Health Care Coverage). Impact section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitlynaryan (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wendy: Expand on the significance behind the WHO essential medicines lists including (local, regional, children, and adult). Broaden the sections (not just include the definition of the section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenrivera (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

General: add section on implementation of medications/how essential medicines are decided

Article Evaluation

Lead Section:

• Does provide a general overview of the information, but vaguely defines the significance of the list of essential medicines
• Does not describe the article's major sections
• Concise but lacks detail

Content:

• References are out of date
• Expand the sections (Theory and Practice, Selection, and Cost-to benefit); these sections contain only the definition with one reference
• The article does not touch upon on equity gaps, mentions the lists of children and adults essential medicines but does not go into detail

Tone and Balance:

• Article is neutral does not sway in any direction due to lack of information

Sources and References/Organization and Writing Quality:

• Sources are not backed up by secondary sources, all sources come from WHO (potential form of bias)
• No peer review articles
• Outdated sources from the same author/organization
• PLENTY of grammar errors with lack of organization
• Links are working

Images and Media:

• There is one image that does not contribute to the understanding of the topic
• Not properly cited
• No other diagrams or images

Talk Page Discussion:

• No article rating
• Conversation about the different types of list of essential medicines by one individual: Blue Rasberry inquiring about regional and local WHO lists

Overall Impressions:

• Lack of detail with no structure that is not appealing to the eye
• Provides introductory level of information but could be improved on by expanding details and concepts (underdeveloped article)

Wenrivera (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review

Peer reviews from Group [#]

· Person A- Phuong

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] The group's edits substantially improved the article according to the Wikipedia peer review ″Guiding framework″. First, the article's structure is more organized, clear, and easy to follow with concise leading sections. The group expanded and added detailed information on the content of the article. Before, the article's sources and references were mainly from WHO and were outdated; the groups added more up-to-date references from diverse sources, including secondary peer-review articles.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] Overall, the group has followed the plans and goals for the improvement of the article. The group was able to expand the content of the article with more detailed information. Implementation and selection sections were added according to the goals, and the group made modifications to the children's list. However, there are a couple of goals that have not been achieved. For example, there is no information on the adult's list of medications. Also, there was a plan to add a section on national law, but it was not present in the article.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

Question 3A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain] The draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. Overall, the draft presented summary information about the topic of essential medicines from different sources and viewpoints. There are no personal opinions or statements that show bias toward particular views or opinions. P.Phan!pharmd26 (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

· Person B- Juu

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The group has done an excellent job updating this article by incorporating the latest information on the significance of essential medicines lists, their purpose and implementation, cost-effectiveness, historical context, and their societal and cultural impact. The inclusion of this up-to-date and relevant information has significantly enhanced the quality of the article.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has not only refreshed the article with the most recent data from WHO and other credible sources but also included insights into how various countries are applying these essential medicine lists. To further improve the article, adding visual aids such as charts, graphs, or tables to illustrate the growth and evolution of the essential medicines list over time would be beneficial for readers.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

Question 3B: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]

Most of the sources cited in the article are reliable and verifiable, primarily coming from the WHO website and the National Library of Medicine. However, one of the references (i.e the reference number 28) is currently inactive and inaccessible.

· Person C-Kristine

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes, the group's edits substantially improved the article by including more recent references. They also used neutral language to present information in an unbiased and balanced way as part of wiki's Guiding framework. They included verifiable and credible sources including review articles from PubMed.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, in their assessment and plan for the article, they mentioned sources coming from a single source, WHO, which could create bias and I see they added more peer reviewed journals. I liked how they expanded the information not just locally, but also globally for children as there wasn't as much information prior to the group's edits.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

Yes, the article meet Wikipedia guidelines in that it reflects neutral point of view and they drew sources from various credible sources.

Question 3C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

Yes, they included citation after additional information was added and everything was easy to follow and understand.

Person D-Arnav

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] I believe that the group has made substantial improvements to the article by attaching more recent and related references. They expanded on necessary information such as the history, the reason for the list's existence, and how this list has had impacts across the world. Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] I believe they reached most of their goals, seeing as the implementation and selection sections were added, but there is not much information on the adult list. Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

Question 3D. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain] Yes they do as the language describes the population wholistically, not focusing on a certain population or group of people. Kris.ram7 (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)