Blueprint to Close the Women%E2%80%99s Health Gap 2025

Programme-level metrics2 2.1.1 Metric 1: Medication volume tracking Definition: Medication use coverage in volume data as compared to clinical practice guidelines (brief) Source: World Health Organization WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines (EMLs), clinical practice guidelines (CPGs – see Metric 2.2.1), IQVIA Period: Most recent year available The first metric chosen for analysis reveals whether pharmaceutical treatments used for a condition (as outlined in CPGs and/or WHO EMLs) are reported and tracked. Across this metric, an array of data sources has been analysed, including CPGs, the WHO EMLs (both their presence and their comprehensiveness) and the volume of medications sold by condition. By gathering this data for whether treatments are used for a condition, the availability and accuracy of data and collaboration are reflected, with a call to action for stakeholders to fill these data gaps. It is important to note that this metric is not meant to capture disease management and is indicative only of data availability. Further, the data does not capture non-pharmaceutical interventions or direct measures of patient access to medication as highlighted in the report. To understand the comprehensiveness of tracking, global volume data for therapeutics was compared to CPGs and/or WHO EMLs where available. Global volume data for therapeutics is collated and tracked globally through reporting from pharmaceutical companies and via data provided by healthcare practitioners on the volume of medication they prescribe by condition globally. Therapeutics recommended in the latest CPGs (further details follow in Metric 2) and WHO EMLs (where data was present) of the prioritized conditions were then analysed in comparison. To conduct this analysis, an exhaustive list of therapeutics covered in global CPGs and the WHO EMLs (where present) was generated for each condition. Given the differences in medications listed in CPGs compared to EMLs, two approaches were taken to conduct the analysis. For EMLs, individual medications were listed, and medications included in volume data were compared against the names of medications. For CPGs, often classes of medications are listed, in the expectation that healthcare practitioners prescribe a class of medication to patients rather than acting on prescriptive directions on the name or brand of medication that should be available. Given this, and the data limitations available, the identified therapeutics were grouped into relevant buckets from the CPGs. These buckets were then compared to therapeutic buckets across the latest full-year volume data (current data uses 2023 latest figures) with each bucket being scored if it were present in the data. Exhaustivity of buckets across CPGs and WHO EMLs were calculated and scored per condition. Scores were allocated based on % exhaustivity: <50% exhaustivity received a score of 1, 50–75% exhaustivity received a score of 2 and >75% exhaustivity received a score of 3. This metric demonstrates the presence (and absence) of data dependent upon multiple stakeholders. While the metric itself is important – i.e. knowing if medications recommended in evidence-based practice are tracked – the gaps in and sparsity of data reflect broader challenges with data collection, standardization and collaboration for conditions that contribute to the women’s health gap.2.1 Data-gap metrics Blueprint to Close the Women’s Health Gap: How to Improve Lives and Economies for All 39