ArticleDrug safety2025
A Mixed-Methods Evaluation to Identify Industry Knowledge Needs and Challenges in Health Product Defect and Recall Reporting in Singapore.
Article in Drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth product defects are complex issues affecting the quality standards of health products and indirectly impact public health outcomes. It is crucial for the pharmaceutical industry to be clear of the reporting and case management requirements for such issues. The Health Sciences Authority of Singapore used a mixed-methods evaluation strategy, combining an online questionnaire and face-to-face focus group discussions to identify areas for knowledge enhancement and challenges faced by the industry regarding product defect reporting and recall procedures. These findings were used to plan training workshops.
methodsA self-administered online survey was emailed to representatives of all pharmaceutical companies with registered medicines and/or vaccines, or cell, tissue and gene therapy products (CTGTPs) in Singapore. The aim was to find out the challenges faced with product defect reporting and recall procedures. Two face-to-face focus group discussions were conducted with selected companies, specifically those that conducted product recalls between September 2022 and August 2024. A two-day online industry training workshop was held in October 2024. Pre- and post-workshop quizzes, including self-rating questions, were conducted to quantify the participants' baseline knowledge and what they gained from the workshop.
resultsIn total, 136 out of 463 individuals (29.4%) completed the online survey questionnaire for medicines and vaccines, while 24 out of 42 individuals (57.1%) completed the survey for CTGTPs. Seventeen industry professionals were invited for two focus group discussions. Participants provided feedback on existing processes, and requested clearer guidelines and examples on reportable defects, to aid their internal decision-making. The training workshop saw 318 and 271 industry professionals in attendance over two days, respectively, with 160 participating in both pre- and post-workshop quizzes. There was an improvement in average quiz scores ranging from 4.5% to 25.0% post-workshop. Participants' self-ratings also improved from a median of 3 (out of 5) to median of 4 from pre- to post-workshop.
conclusionsThe series of evaluations revealed an enhanced understanding of regulatory requirements in industry professionals through a combination of surveys, focus group discussions and tailored training workshops. These initiatives can equip the industry with knowledge to make informed decisions and enhance overall compliance with product defect reporting and recall procedures. The findings would be used to streamline our processes related to defect and recall.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40272756What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.