A study assessing the knowledge, attitude, and practice of materiovigilance among medical professionals in the states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, India

Saranraj K.; Usha Kiran P.

doi:10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20240993

Authors

Saranraj K. Department of Pharmacology, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India
Usha Kiran P. Department of Pharmacology, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20240993

Keywords:

Materiovigilance, Medical devices, Adverse events, MvPI

Abstract

Background: Medical devices are vital for healthcare diagnosis and treatment but pose inherent risks. Physicians and healthcare professionals play a crucial role in reporting adverse events associated with these devices. Despite this, there is a notable scarcity of literature addressing the knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding India's Materiovigilance (Mv) Program. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of doctors and postgraduate residents in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu regarding the Materiovigilance program of India (MvPI).

Methods: It was conducted as an observational, cross-sectional study, a structured self-administered Google Form survey was distributed among medical professionals and citizens of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The survey, comprising 22 questions on knowledge, attitudes, and Mv practices, was disseminated via various social networking sites.

Results: Out of 700 doctors and postgraduate residents surveyed, 496 responded, yielding a response rate of 70.8%. The majority (96.8%) acknowledged the potential for adverse events from medical devices, with 91.1% agreeing on healthcare professionals' responsibility to report such events. Despite experiencing medical device-related adverse events in practice (63.3% of respondents), only a small fraction (12.1%) reported them, although 93.5% expressed willingness to report.

Conclusions: The study underscores a knowledge gap among physicians and residents regarding MvPI in India, highlighting the necessity for educational interventions. To address this gap, MvPI coordinators should organize conferences and seminars aimed at enhancing awareness and reporting practices among healthcare professionals.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Panchal YN, Vyas BM, Suthar KM, Shah KN. A study of assessing knowledge, attitude, and practice of Mv among medical surgeons of Gujarat. Nat J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2022;12(11):1792-.

Meher BR, Padhy BM, Srinivasan A, Mohanty RR. Awareness, attitude, and practice of Mv among medical professionals at a tertiary care institute of national importance: A cross-sectional study. Perspect Clin Res. 2022;13(2):94.

Gupta P, Janodia MD, Jagadish PC, Udupa N. Medical device vigilance systems: India, US, UK, and Australia. Med Dev. 2010;3:67.

Craig A, O’Meley P, Carter P. The need for greater reporting of medical device incidents. Innovations. 2019;3:56-63.

Hoda F, Verma R, Arshad M, Siddiqui AN, Khan MA, Akhtar M, Najmi AK. Mv: concept, structure and emerging perspective for patient’s safety in India. Drug Res. 2020;70(09):429-36.

Heneghan C, Thompson M, Billingsley M, Cohen D. Medical-device recalls in the UK and the device-regulation process: retrospective review of safety notices and alerts. BMJ. 2011;1(1):e000155.

Kumar P, Kalaiselvan V, Kaur I, Thota P, Singh GN. Mv programme of India (MVPI): A step towards patient safety for medical devices. Eur J Biomed Pharm Sci. 2016;12:497-501.

Shukla S, Gupta M, Pandit S, Thomson M, Shivhare A, Kalaiselvan V, Singh GN. Implementation of adverse event reporting for medical devices, India. Bull World Health Org. 2020;98(3):206.

Joshi A, Kale S, Chandel S, Pal DK. Likert scale: Explored and explained. Br J App Sci Technol. 2015; 7(4):396.

Srinivasan V, Sheela D, Mridula D. Knowledge, attitude and practice of pharmacovigilance among the healthcare professionals in a tertiary care hospital–A questionnaire study. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2017;10(3): 1441-7.

Bepari A, Niazi SK, Rahman I, Dervesh AM. The comparative evaluation of knowledge, attitude, and practice of different health-care professionals about the pharmacovigilance system of India. J Adv Pharma Technol Res. 2019;10(2):68.

Kurien S, Satpathy S, Gupta SK, Arya SK, Sharma DK. Study of reporting system for adverse events related to common medical devices at a tertiary care public sector hospital in India. Int J Health Med Engineer. 2015;8(7):448-53.

Teow N, Siegel SJ. FDA regulation of medical devices and medical device reporting. Pharmaceut Reg Affairs. 2013;2(110):2.

Gagliardi AR, Ducey A, Lehoux P, Turgeon T, Ross S, Trbovich P, et al. Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices. BMJ Qual Safety. 2018;27(3):190-8.