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 OpenAlexfundno aff
Arthur Bagonza, Stefan Peterson, Andreas Mårtensson, Henry Wamani, Phyllis Awor, Milton Mutto, David Musoke, Linda Gibson, Freddy Eric Kitutu

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmaceutical Policy and PracticeSame topicPharmaceutical Quality and CounterfeitingFrench-language works237,207