Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34986899›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2022

An exploratory assessment of the legislative framework for combating counterfeit medicines in South Africa.

R J Moshoeshoe, G M Enslin, D R Katerere

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

R J MoshoeshoeDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology, Private bag X640, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1145-9864
G M EnslinDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology, Private bag X640, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9006-0768
D R KaterereDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology, Private bag X640, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa. katereredr@tut.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4606-294X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubstandard and Falsified (SF) medical products are a growing global concern. They harm the individual patient, the healthcare system and the economy. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has highlighted contributing factors globally: insufficient national medicine regulation, poor enforcement of existing legislation, weak stakeholder collaboration and the rise of novel viruses, such as the COVID-19. The study aimed to assess the legislative and policy framework and institutional relationships governing pharmaceuticals and anti-counterfeiting strategies.

methodsThe study was explorative and consisted of two phases. The first phase was between 2016 and 2017. It looked at document analysis (annual reports and press releases from 2011 to 2016) from government institutions involved in medicines regulation and law enforcement for SF seizure reports between 2004 and 2017. The second phase was between 2016 and 2018 through in-depth semi-structured interviews (seven in total) with selected stakeholders.

resultsFirst Phase-the data collected and reported by various departments was sporadic and did not always correlate for the same periods indicating, a lack of a central reporting system and stakeholder collaboration. In South Africa, counterfeiting of medicines mainly involves the smuggling of non-registered goods. The most common counterfeit items were painkillers, herbal teas, herbal ointments, while some were medical devices. Furthermore, Customs identified South Africa as a transhipment point for SF infiltration to neighbouring countries with less robust regulatory systems. Second phase-interview transcripts were analysed by thematic coding. These were identified as the adequacy of legislation, institutional capacity, enforcement and post-market surveillance, stakeholder collaboration and information sharing, and public education and awareness.

conclusionDocument analysis and interviews indicate that South Africa already has a national drug policy and legislative framework consistent with international law. However, there is no specific pharmaceutical legislation addressing the counterfeiting of medicines. Law enforcement has also been complicated by poor stakeholder engagement and information sharing.

Indexed as

CounterfeitsCOVID-19 pandemicPharmaceutical policyPublic healthRegulation of medicinesSouth African regulationsSubstandard medicines

Identifiers

PMID34986899
PMCPMC8730303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.