Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDiaconu, Karin
dc.contributor.authorChen, Y-F
dc.contributor.authorManaseki-Holland, S.
dc.contributor.authorCummins, C.
dc.contributor.authorLilford, R.
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-29T22:02:31Z
dc.date.available2018-06-29T22:02:31Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifierER4565
dc.identifier.citationDiaconu, K., Chen, Y., Manaseki-Holland, S., Cummins, C. & Lilford, R. (2014) Medical device procurement in low- and middle-income settings: protocol for a systematic review, Systematic Reviews, vol. 3, , ,
dc.identifier.issn2046-4053
dc.identifier.urihttp://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-118
dc.identifier.urihttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/4565
dc.description.abstractBackground: Medical device procurement processes for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are a poorly understood and researched topic. To support LMIC policy formulation in this area, international public health organizations and research institutions issue a large body of predominantly grey literature including guidelines, manuals and recommendations. We propose to undertake a systematic review to identify and explore the medical device procurement methodologies suggested within this and further literature. Procurement facilitators and barriers will be identified, and methodologies for medical device prioritization under resource constraints will be discussed. Methods/design: Searches of both bibliographic and grey literature will be conducted to identify documents relating to the procurement of medical devices in LMICs. Data will be extracted according to protocol on a number of pre-specified issues and variables. First, data relating to the specific settings described within the literature will be noted. Second, information relating to medical device procurement methodologies will be extracted, including prioritization of procurement under resource constraints, the use of evidence (e.g. cost-effectiveness evaluations, burden of disease data) as well as stakeholders participating in procurement processes. Information relating to prioritization methodologies will be extracted in the form of quotes or keywords, and analysis will include qualitative meta-summary. Narrative synthesis will be employed to analyse data otherwise extracted. The PRISMA guidelines for reporting will be followed. Discussion: The current review will identify recommended medical device procurement methodologies for LMICs. Prioritization methods for medical device acquisition will be explored. Relevant stakeholders, facilitators and barriers will be discussed. The review is aimed at both LMIC decision makers and the international research community and hopes to offer a first holistic conceptualization of this topic.
dc.publisherBioMed Central
dc.relation.ispartofSystematic Reviews
dc.subjectDeveloping Countries
dc.subjectPrioritization
dc.subjectProcurement
dc.subjectMedical Devices
dc.titleMedical device procurement in low- and middle-income settings: protocol for a systematic review
dc.typearticle
dcterms.accessRightspublic
dc.description.facultysch_iih
dc.description.referencetext1. Perry L, Malkin R: Effectiveness of medical equipment donations to improve health systems: how much medical equipment is broken in the developing world? Med Biol Eng Comput 2011, 49:719-722. 2. World Health Organization: Medical devices: Managing the Mismatch (An outcome of the Priority Medical Devices project). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. 3. World Health Organization: Local Production and Technology Transfer to Increase Access to Medical Devices: Addressing the barriers and challenges in low- and middle-income countries. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012. 4. World Health Organization: Background paper 8: future public health needs: communalities and differences between high- and low-resource settings in Geneva. In Medical Devices: Managing the Mismatch (An outcome of the Priority Medical Devices Project). 2010. 5. Howitt P, Darzi A, Yang GZ, Ashrafian H, Atun R, Barlow J, Blakemore A, Bull AMJ, Car J, Conteh L, Cooke GS, Ford N, Gregson SJ, Kerr K, King D, Kulendran M, Malkin R, Majeed A, Matlin S, Merrified R, Penfolf H, Reid SD, Smith PC, Stevens MM, Templeton MR, Vincent C, Wilson E: Technologies for global health. Lancet 2012, 380:507-535. 6. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. 2013, [http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/ chapter/foreword] 7. World Health Organization: Background Paper 3: Clinical evidence for medical devices: regulatory processes focusing on Europe and the United States of America Geneva. In Medical Devices: Managing the Mismatch (An outcome of the Priority Medical Devices Project). 2010. 8. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing: HTA policy framework. [http://www.health.gov.au/internet/hta/publishing.nsf/Content/ policy-1] 9. Canadian Health Technology Assessment Task Group: Health technology strategy 1. 0 final report. [http://www.who.int/medical_devices/ survey_resources/health_technology_national_policy_canada.pdf] 10. Fricke FU, Dauben HP: Health technology assessment: a perspective from Germany. Value Health 2009, 12(Suppl 2):S20-S27. 11. World Health Organization: Baseline Country Survey on Medical Devices. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. 12. UNAIDS & World Health Organization: Guidelines for Using HIV Testing Technologies in Surveillance. 2009. 13. Rieder HL, Van Deun A, Kam KM, Kim SJ, Chonde RM, Trbucq A, Urbanczik R: Priorities for Tuberculosis Bacteriology Services in Low-Income Countries. Paris: International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease; 2007. 14. World Health Organization: List of medical devices by health care facility: specialized hospital-diagnostic. 2010, [http://hinfo.humaninfo.ro/gsdl/ whoghp/documents/s17971en/s17971en.pdf] 15. World Health Organization: Background paper 1: a stepwise approach to identify gaps in medical devices (availability matrix and survey methodology), Geneva. In Medical Devices: Managing the Mismatch (An outcome of the Priority Medical Devices Project). 2010. 16. Baltussen R, Niessen L: Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006, 4:14. 17. Glassman A, Chalkidou K, on behalf of the Center for Global Development Priority Setting Institutions for Global Health Working Group: Priority-Setting in Health Building institutions for smarter public spending. Washington: Center for Global Development; 2012. 18. Kapiriri L, Martin DK: A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries. Health Care Anal 2007, 15:159-167. 19. Study Group 1 of the Global Harmonization Task Force: Definition of the terms medical device- and in vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical device. 2012, [http://www.imdrf.org/docs/ghtf/final/sg1/technical-docs/ghtf-sg1- n071-2012-definition-of-terms-120516.docx]. 20. WHO, UNFPA, UNAIDS & FHI: The TCu380A Intrauterine Contraceptive Device (IUD): Specification, Prequalification and Guidelines for Procurement. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. 21. World Health Organization: Procuring Single-Use Injection Equipment and Safety Boxes: A practical Guide for Pharmacists, Physicians, Procurement Staff and Programme Managers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. 22. Ross S, Weijer C, Gafni A, Ducey A, Thompson C, Lafreniere R: Ethics, economics and the regulation and adoption of new medical devices: case studies in pelvic floor surgery. BMC Med Ethics 2010, 11:14. 23. Anderson BO, Cazap E, El Saghir NS, Yip CH, Khaled HM, Otero IV, Adebamovo C, Badwe R, Harford JB: Optimisation of breast cancer management in low-resource and middle-resource countries: executive summary of the Breast Health Global Initiative consensus 2010. Lancet Oncol 2011, 12:387-398. 24. Porto JP, Mantese OC, Arantes A, Freitas C, Pinto P, Filho G: Nosocomial infections in a pediatric intensive care unit of a developing country: NHSN surveillance. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 2012, 45:475-479. 25. Kalifa G, Bouras A, Reymond-Yeni A, Gendrel D: Imaging in pediatrics. Strategy and economic implications for the Third World. Annales de Pediatrie 1992, 39(2):67-70 [French]. 26. Malkin R, Anand V: A novel phototherapy device . IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2010, 29(2):37-43. 27. World Health Organization: Medical Device Regulations: Global Overview and Guiding Principles. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. 28. Sandelowski M, Barroso J, Voils CI: Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Res Nurs Heal 2007, 30:99-111. 29. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at University of York: Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York, UK: CRD University of York; 2008. 30. PRISMA 2009 Checklist. PRISMA 2009 Checklist [http://www.prismastatement. org/2.1.2%20-%20PRISMA%202009%20Checklist.pdf]. 31. Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, Van Til J, Kind P, Goetghebeur M: From efficacy to equity: literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decision making. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2012, 10:9.
dc.description.volume3
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-118
dc.description.ispublishedpub
dc.description.eprintid4565
rioxxterms.typearticle
refterms.dateFCA2016-10-19
refterms.dateFCD2016-10-19
qmu.authorDiaconu, Karin
qmu.centreInstitute for Global Health and Development
dc.description.statuspub
dc.description.number1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record