ArticlePloS one2025
Perceptions and practices on substandard and falsified medicines in humans and animals in Wakiso district, Uganda: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have taken a broad perspective on substandard and falsified medicines (SFMs) in community settings in Uganda. We therefore qualitatively assessed the perceptions and practices on SFMs for humans and animals in Wakiso District, Uganda.
methodsThis qualitative study employed 12 focus group discussions among community health workers and farmers, as well as 11 key informant interviews among health professionals, local leaders, veterinary and human drug shop operators, and Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries officials. Data was analysed thematically using NVivo (2020).
resultsFindings are presented under four themes: definition of SFMs; identification of SFMs; drivers of SFMs; and challenges in reporting SFMs. Although participants felt that the term SFMs was too broad to define, many explained it in relation to consequences (such as side effects, disabilities, and death), and the different methods that may be employed to identify SFMs. SFMs were said to be identified through changes in appearance such as colour, texture and packaging. However, the most reported way of identifying SFMs was based on negative effects on humans and animals after use. Customer drivers of SFMs included inadequate knowledge, lack of finances, and lack of access to licensed drug shops/ pharmacies. Supplier drivers of SFMs included limited regulation and enforcement, and the business orientation of drug shops/ pharmacies. Lack of knowledge of how to report suspected cases of SFMs, lack of proof of purchase of SFMs, fear of reporting, and lack of trust in government procedures were the challenges identified to reporting SFMs.
conclusionSeveral drivers of SFMs in the community were established related to individuals, sources of medicine, and regulatory frameworks. Increased awareness on SFMs, improved traceability of purchases and reporting, and better enforcement of regulations are needed to reduce the use and risks associated with SFMs to protect public health.
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.