Systems and processes for regulation of investigational medical devices in Uganda.
clinical evaluation
medical device standards
medical devices
medical devices regulations
medical innovation
regulatory pathway
Journal
Frontiers in medical technology
ISSN: 2673-3129
Titre abrégé: Front Med Technol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101772626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
26
09
2022
accepted:
19
12
2022
entrez:
9
2
2023
pubmed:
10
2
2023
medline:
10
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In many parts of the world, medical devices and the processes of their development are tightly regulated. However, the current regulatory landscape in Uganda like other developing countries is weak and poorly defined, which creates significant barriers to innovation, clinical evaluation, and translation of medical devices. To evaluate current knowledge, systems and infrastructure for medical devices regulation and innovation in Uganda. A mixed methods study design using the methods triangulation strategy was employed in this study. Data of equal weight were collected sequentially. First, a digital structured questionnaire was sent out to innovators to establish individual knowledge and experience with medical device innovation and regulation. Then, a single focus group discussion involving both medical device innovators and regulators to collect data about the current regulatory practices for medical devices in Uganda. Univariate and bivariate analysis was done for the quantitative data to summarize results in graphs and tables. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Ethical review and approval were obtained from the Makerere University School of Biomedical Sciences, Research and Ethics Committee, and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. A total of 47 innovators responded to the questionnaire. 14 respondents were excluded since they were not medical device innovators. Majority (76%) of individuals had been innovators for more than a year, held a bachelor's degree with a background in Engineering and applied sciences, and worked in an academic research institute. 22 of the 33 medical device innovators had stopped working on their innovations and had stalled at the proof-of-concept stage. Insufficient funding, inadequate technical expertise and confusing regulatory landscape were major challenges to innovation. The two themes that emerged from the discussion were "developing standards for medical devices regulation" and "implementation of regulations in practical processes". Legal limitations, lengthy processes, and low demand were identified as challenges to developing medical device regulations. Efforts have been taken by government to create a pathway for medical device innovations to be translated to the market. More work needs to be done to coordinate efforts among stakeholders to build effective medical device regulations in Uganda.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
In many parts of the world, medical devices and the processes of their development are tightly regulated. However, the current regulatory landscape in Uganda like other developing countries is weak and poorly defined, which creates significant barriers to innovation, clinical evaluation, and translation of medical devices.
Aim
UNASSIGNED
To evaluate current knowledge, systems and infrastructure for medical devices regulation and innovation in Uganda.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A mixed methods study design using the methods triangulation strategy was employed in this study. Data of equal weight were collected sequentially. First, a digital structured questionnaire was sent out to innovators to establish individual knowledge and experience with medical device innovation and regulation. Then, a single focus group discussion involving both medical device innovators and regulators to collect data about the current regulatory practices for medical devices in Uganda. Univariate and bivariate analysis was done for the quantitative data to summarize results in graphs and tables. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Ethical review and approval were obtained from the Makerere University School of Biomedical Sciences, Research and Ethics Committee, and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 47 innovators responded to the questionnaire. 14 respondents were excluded since they were not medical device innovators. Majority (76%) of individuals had been innovators for more than a year, held a bachelor's degree with a background in Engineering and applied sciences, and worked in an academic research institute. 22 of the 33 medical device innovators had stopped working on their innovations and had stalled at the proof-of-concept stage. Insufficient funding, inadequate technical expertise and confusing regulatory landscape were major challenges to innovation. The two themes that emerged from the discussion were "developing standards for medical devices regulation" and "implementation of regulations in practical processes". Legal limitations, lengthy processes, and low demand were identified as challenges to developing medical device regulations.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Efforts have been taken by government to create a pathway for medical device innovations to be translated to the market. More work needs to be done to coordinate efforts among stakeholders to build effective medical device regulations in Uganda.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36756148
doi: 10.3389/fmedt.2022.1054120
pmc: PMC9899893
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1054120Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/T03937X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023 Mpaata, Matovu, Takuwa, Kiwanuka, Lewis, Norrie, Ononge, Tuck, Wolters, Desmulliez and Ssekitoleko.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2016 May;39(5):217-225
pubmed: 27706409
J Emerg Nurs. 2019 Jan;45(1):103-105
pubmed: 30616761
Br Med Bull. 2013;107:5-18
pubmed: 23896485
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006;2006:5675-8
pubmed: 17947162
Trials. 2021 Jul 21;22(1):472
pubmed: 34289892
Afr J Lab Med. 2014 Apr 04;3(1):123
pubmed: 29043177
Dev World Bioeth. 2020 Mar;20(1):50-60
pubmed: 29958330
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020 Jan;15(1):21-28
pubmed: 30318953
Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017;69(Suppl 2):107-131
pubmed: 28989188
Urol Oncol. 2015 Mar;33(3):128-32
pubmed: 25458071
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Oct 31;14:524
pubmed: 25366990
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Oct 28;16(1):146
pubmed: 27793191
Front Med Technol. 2022 Jul 28;4:952767
pubmed: 35968546
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2021 Jul 7;19(1):39
pubmed: 34233710
Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Feb;24(2):105-12
pubmed: 14769454
BMJ Open. 2013 Nov 27;3(11):e003616
pubmed: 24285629
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2012 Apr;31(4):345-8
pubmed: 22652976
BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2010 Dec 13;10 Suppl 1:S1
pubmed: 21144069
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2021 Mar 8;14(1):29
pubmed: 33685518
BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2010 Dec 13;10 Suppl 1:S5
pubmed: 21144076
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2016 Aug;2016:4329-4332
pubmed: 28269236
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2021 Apr 1;9(1):136-148
pubmed: 33764886