Health-care Professionals' Perception toward Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance Practices: A Cross-sectional Study in India.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Indian journal of public health Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-24 DOI:10.4103/ijph.ijph_72_23
Shatrunajay Shukla, Bikash Ranjan Meher, Archana Mishra, Shubhang Arora, Vivekanandan Kalaiselvan, Rajeev Singh Raghuvanshi
{"title":"Health-care Professionals' Perception toward Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance Practices: A Cross-sectional Study in India.","authors":"Shatrunajay Shukla, Bikash Ranjan Meher, Archana Mishra, Shubhang Arora, Vivekanandan Kalaiselvan, Rajeev Singh Raghuvanshi","doi":"10.4103/ijph.ijph_72_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Summary: </strong>A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted to assess the health-care professionals (HCPs)' perception toward existing medical device postmarket surveillance (PMS) practices in India. A total of 1756 responses (medical practitioners [19.8%], nurses [22.5%], pharmacists [21.4%], and biomedical engineers [13.8%]) were recorded and analyzed. About 71.2% of participants were aware about the ongoing PMS program, 87.5% were aware that medical devices are under regulation in India, and 83.3% were aware about who can report medical device adverse event (MDAE). About 56.3% of participants agreed that they take regular feedback from patients after using high-risk medical device. Majority of participants (69.4%) were aware about tools for reporting MDAE and the online reporting form is the most preferable tool among users. About 76.2% of participants were agreeing that reporting of MDAE is their professional/ethical responsibility. This study reveals that Indian HCPs show a good understanding of PMS practices and a positive perception toward MDAE reporting. However, underreporting still remains a challenge in India.</p>","PeriodicalId":13298,"journal":{"name":"Indian journal of public health","volume":"68 3","pages":"424-427"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijph.ijph_72_23","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted to assess the health-care professionals (HCPs)' perception toward existing medical device postmarket surveillance (PMS) practices in India. A total of 1756 responses (medical practitioners [19.8%], nurses [22.5%], pharmacists [21.4%], and biomedical engineers [13.8%]) were recorded and analyzed. About 71.2% of participants were aware about the ongoing PMS program, 87.5% were aware that medical devices are under regulation in India, and 83.3% were aware about who can report medical device adverse event (MDAE). About 56.3% of participants agreed that they take regular feedback from patients after using high-risk medical device. Majority of participants (69.4%) were aware about tools for reporting MDAE and the online reporting form is the most preferable tool among users. About 76.2% of participants were agreeing that reporting of MDAE is their professional/ethical responsibility. This study reveals that Indian HCPs show a good understanding of PMS practices and a positive perception toward MDAE reporting. However, underreporting still remains a challenge in India.

医疗保健专业人员对医疗器械上市后监管措施的看法:印度横断面研究。
摘要:我们开展了一项基于网络的横断面调查,以评估医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)对印度现行医疗器械上市后监督(PMS)做法的看法。共记录并分析了 1756 份回复(医生[19.8%]、护士[22.5%]、药剂师[21.4%]和生物医学工程师[13.8%])。约 71.2% 的参与者了解正在实施的 PMS 计划,87.5% 的参与者了解印度正在对医疗器械进行监管,83.3% 的参与者了解谁可以报告医疗器械不良事件 (MDAE)。约 56.3% 的参与者同意在使用高风险医疗器械后定期听取患者的反馈意见。大多数参与者(69.4%)了解报告医疗器械不良事件的工具,而在线报告表格是用户最喜欢的工具。约 76.2% 的参与者同意,报告 MDAE 是他们的专业/道德责任。这项研究表明,印度的 HCPs 对 PMS 实践有很好的了解,并对 MDAE 报告有积极的看法。然而,报告不足仍是印度面临的一项挑战。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Indian journal of public health
Indian journal of public health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
92
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Public Health is a peer-reviewed international journal published Quarterly by the Indian Public Health Association. It is indexed / abstracted by the major international indexing systems like Index Medicus/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PUBMED, etc. The journal allows free access (Open Access) to its contents and permits authors to self-archive final accepted version of the articles. The Indian Journal of Public Health publishes articles of authors from India and abroad with special emphasis on original research findings that are relevant for developing country perspectives including India. The journal considers publication of articles as original article, review article, special article, brief research article, CME / Education forum, commentary, letters to editor, case series reports, etc. The journal covers population based studies, impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation, systematic review, meta-analysis, clinic-social studies etc., related to any domain and discipline of public health, specially relevant to national priorities, including ethical and social issues. Articles aligned with national health issues and policy implications are prefered.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信