Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39161496›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Materiovigilance Among Healthcare Professionals at a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital.

Brijesh Sojitra, Chetna Patel, Sajal Pandya, Payal Virani, Paras Shah, Jaykumar Patel, Akash Shah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Brijesh SojitraPharmacology, Government Medical College, Surat, Surat, IND.
Chetna PatelPharmacology, Government Medical College, Surat, Surat, IND.
Sajal PandyaPharmacology, Government Medical College, Surat, Surat, IND.
Payal ViraniPharmacology, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Medical College, Rajkot, IND.
Paras ShahPharmacology, Government Medical College, Surat, Surat, IND.
Jaykumar PatelPharmacology, Government Medical College, Surat, Surat, IND.
Akash ShahPharmacology, Government Medical College, Surat, Surat, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of materiovigilance among healthcare professionals (HCPs) at a tertiary care teaching hospital in South Gujarat, India. Specifically, it sought to identify gaps in current understanding and reporting practices related to adverse events associated with medical devices. Introduction Materiovigilance, the systematic monitoring and assessment of adverse events related to medical devices, is crucial for ensuring patient safety and enhancing device performance. In India, the Materiovigilance Programme of India (MvPI) under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare oversees the safe use of medical devices, integrating them with the pharmacovigilance framework. Despite these efforts, challenges persist in awareness, reporting practices, and the integration of materiovigilance among healthcare professionals. The knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of these professionals are pivotal for effective adverse event reporting, but underreporting due to a lack of awareness, inadequate training, and perceived administrative burden remains a significant barrier. The study underscores the importance of training programs, improving reporting infrastructure, and fostering a safety culture within healthcare institutions to enhance the effectiveness of materiovigilance in India. Methodology An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire-based approach. A total of 215 HCPs, including consultant doctors, resident doctors, and nursing staff, participated in the study. The questionnaire covered aspects of knowledge regarding the Materiovigilance Programme of India (MvPI), classification of medical devices, attitudes towards adverse event reporting, and actual reporting practices. Data collection was carried out electronically over the course of one month using Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States). Results Among the participants, 135 (62.79%) correctly identified MvPI as the program for monitoring adverse events caused by medical devices. A majority of 188 (87.44%) understood that medical devices in India are classified based on a risk-based approach. Positive attitudes towards reporting adverse events were prevalent, with 202 (93.95%) acknowledging the potential for adverse events from medical devices and agreeing on the importance of reporting. However, a significant gap was noted between noticing adverse events (138 participants, 64.19%) and actual reporting (60 participants, 27.91%), indicating a need for improved reporting practices. Only 104 participants (48.37%) had participated in workshops or continuing medical education (CME) sessions on medical device safety. Conclusion The study reveals a strong foundation of knowledge and positive attitudes towards the materiovigilance among HCPs in South Gujarat. However, there is a notable discrepancy between awareness and actual reporting practices. To enhance the effectiveness of materiovigilance, interventions such as targeted educational programs and simplification of reporting procedures are recommended. These efforts are essential to ensure timely detection, reporting, and management of adverse events related to medical devices, thereby enhancing patient safety and overall healthcare quality.

Indexed as

attitudehealth care professionalsknowledgemateriovigilancepharmacovigilancepractice

Identifiers

PMID39161496
PMCPMC11332695

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.