Health-care Professionals' Perception toward Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance Practices: A Cross-sectional Study in India
Indian Journal of Public Health, ISSN: 2229-7693, Vol: 68, Issue: 3, Page: 424-427
2024
- 1Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures1
- Readers1
Article Description
A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted to assess the health-care professionals (HCPs)' perception toward existing medical device postmarket surveillance (PMS) practices in India. A total of 1756 responses (medical practitioners [19.8%], nurses [22.5%], pharmacists [21.4%], and biomedical engineers [13.8%]) were recorded and analyzed. About 71.2% of participants were aware about the ongoing PMS program, 87.5% were aware that medical devices are under regulation in India, and 83.3% were aware about who can report medical device adverse event (MDAE). About 56.3% of participants agreed that they take regular feedback from patients after using high-risk medical device. Majority of participants (69.4%) were aware about tools for reporting MDAE and the online reporting form is the most preferable tool among users. About 76.2% of participants were agreeing that reporting of MDAE is their professional/ethical responsibility. This study reveals that Indian HCPs show a good understanding of PMS practices and a positive perception toward MDAE reporting. However, underreporting still remains a challenge in India.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know