ReviewJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and practices and demand-side interventions for combating substandard and falsified medicines: a scoping review.
Review in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
Background: The proliferation of substandard and falsified medical products (SFM) poses a significant threat to public health globally. Despite rigorous surveillance and law enforcement efforts, risk of exposure to SFM is on the rise, notably through online pharmacies. The current interventions predominantly target the pharmaceutical supply chains through legal and regulatory frameworks, while there is a noticeable deficiency in focusing on interventions for healthcare providers and consumers. This scoping review aims to summarise the current literature on SFM, focusing on their health and economic consequences, and to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare providers and the general public. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases, focusing on studies from the past 15 years that provided estimates on mortality, morbidities and economic impacts of SFM and covered the following topic areas: knowledge, attitudes and practices of healthcare providers, patients and general public; and population level interventions regarding SFM. We exclude non-peer-reviewed literature. Results: A total of 78 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. These studies suggest that the data on adverse effects on health and economic impact of SF medicines are predominantly based on statistical models, and empirical data are grossly lacking. Knowledge of risks, identification of SFM, and reporting to regulatory authorities are substantially low among healthcare providers and general public. Discussion: This review highlights the need for innovative, targeted strategies - such as digital health interventions, enhanced training programs for healthcare providers, and context-specific public awareness campaigns - to bridge the gap between awareness and effective practice. Conclusions: Our study underscores that a multifaceted approach must not only reinforce regulatory frameworks and surveillance systems for protecting the supply chains but also proactively empower both health providers and consumers to identify and combat SFM in today's rapidly evolving digital landscape.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.