↓ Skip to main content

First regulatory inspections measuring adherence to Good Pharmacy Practices in the public sector in Uganda: a cross-sectional comparison of performance between supervised and unsupervised facilities

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
First regulatory inspections measuring adherence to Good Pharmacy Practices in the public sector in Uganda: a cross-sectional comparison of performance between supervised and unsupervised facilities
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40545-016-0068-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Birna Trap, Kate Kikule, Catherine Vialle-Valentin, Richard Musoke, Grace Otto Lajul, Kim Hoppenworth, Dorthe Konradsen

Abstract

Since its inception, the Uganda National Drug Authority (NDA) has regularly inspected private sector pharmacies to monitor adherence to Good Pharmacy Practices (GPP). This study reports findings from the first public facility inspections following an intervention (SPARS: Supervision, Performance Assessment, and Recognition Strategy) to build GPP and medicines management capacity in the public sector. The study includes 455 public facilities: 417 facilities were inspected after at least four SPARS visits by trained managerial district staff (SPARS group), 38 before any exposure to SPARS. NDA inspectors measured 10 critical, 20 major, and 37 minor GPP indicators in every facility and only accredited facilities that passed all 10 critical and failed no more than 7 major indicators. Lack of compliance for a given indicator was defined as less than 75 % facilities passing that indicator. We assessed factors associated with certification using logistic regression analysis and compared number of failed indicators between the SPARS and comparative groups using two sample t-tests with equal or unequal variance. 57.4 % of inspected facilities obtained GPP certification: 57.1 % in the SPARS and 60.5 % in the comparative group (Adj. OR = 0.91, 95 % CI 0.45-1.85, p = 0.802). Overall, facilities failed an average of 10 indicators. SPARS facilities performed better than comparative facilities (9 (SD 6.1) vs. 13 (SD 7.7) failed indicators respectively; p = 0.017), and SPARS supported facilities scored better on indicators covered by SPARS. For all indicators but one minor, performance in the SPARS group was equal to or significantly better than in unsupervised facilities. Within the SPARS (intervention) group, certified facilities had < 75 % compliance on 7 indicators (all minor), and uncertified facilities on 19 (4 critical, 2 major, and 13 minor) indicators. Half of the Ugandan population obtains medicines from the public sector. Yet, we found only 3/5 of inspected public health facilities meet GPP standards. SPARS facilities tended to perform better than unsupervised facilities, substantiating the value of supporting supervision interventions in GPP areas that need strengthening. None compliant indicators can be improved through practices and behavioral changes; some require infrastructure investments. We conclude that regular NDA inspections of public sector pharmacies in conjunction with interventions to improve GPP adherence can revolutionize patient care in Uganda.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 19 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 21 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,455,405
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#355
of 407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,812
of 298,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 407 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.