MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085070676 · doi:10.1186/s40545-020-00265-9

Regulatory inspection of registered private drug shops in East-Central Uganda—what it is versus what it should be: a qualitative study

2020· article· en· W3085070676 on OpenAlex
Arthur Bagonza, Stefan Peterson, Andreas Mårtensson, Henry Wamani, Phyllis Awor, Milton Mutto, David Musoke, Linda Gibson, Freddy Eric Kitutu

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Quality and Counterfeiting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUppsala UniversitetNottingham Trent UniversityErasmus+Trent UniversityUNICEF
KeywordsQualitative researchPharmacyDrugMedicinePharmacologyFamily medicineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Regulatory inspection of private drug shops in Uganda is a mandate of the Ministry of Health carried out by the National Drug Authority. This study evaluated how this mandate is being carried out at national, district, and drug shop levels. Specifically, perspectives on how the inspection is done, who does it, and challenges faced were sought from inspectors and drug sellers. METHODS: Six key informant interviews (KIIs) were held with inspectors at the national and district level, while eight focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted among nursing assistants, and two FGDs were held with nurses. The study appraised current methods of inspecting drug sellers against national professional guidelines for licensing and renewal of class C drug shops in Uganda. Transcripts were managed using Atlas ti version 7 (ATLAS.ti GmbH, Berlin) data management software where the thematic content analysis was done. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the study: authoritarian inspection, delegated inspection, licensing, training, and bribes. Under authoritarian inspection, drug sellers decried the high handedness used by inspectors when found with expired or no license at all. For delegated inspection, drug sellers said that sometimes, inspectors send health assistants and sub-county chiefs for inspection visits. This cadre of people is not recognized by law as inspectors. Inspectors trained drug sellers on how to organize their drug shops better and how to use new technologies such as rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) in diagnosing malaria. Bribes were talked about mostly by nursing assistants who purported that inspectors were not interested in inspection per se but collecting illicit payments from them. Inspectors said that the facilitation they received from the central government were inadequate for a routine inspection. CONCLUSION: The current method of inspecting drug sellers is harsh and instills fear among drug sellers. There is a need to establish a well-recognized structure of inspection as well as establish channels of dialogue between inspectors and drug sellers if meaningful compliance is to be achieved. The government also needs to enhance both human and financial resources if meaningful inspection of drug sellers is to take place.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.420
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.129 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it