为能力建设制定药品监管体系基准:对工具、实践和建议的综合审查

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Health Policy and Management Pub Date : 2023-10-04 DOI:10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8100
Junnan Shi, Xianwen Chen, Hao Hu, Carolina Oi Lam Ung
{"title":"为能力建设制定药品监管体系基准:对工具、实践和建议的综合审查","authors":"Junnan Shi, Xianwen Chen, Hao Hu, Carolina Oi Lam Ung","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Benchmarking has been increasingly used on drug regulatory systems to achieve sustainable pharmaceutical system strengthening. This study aimed to identify the scope, tools and benefits of benchmarking regulatory capacities and the most recent development in such phenomenon. Method: This study employed an integrative and critical review of the literature and documents on benchmarking drug regulatory capacities identified from 6 databases and 5 websites of related organizations and government agencies in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Forty-three studies and 6 documents about regulatory benchmarking published between 2005 and 2022 were included in this review. Five benchmarking assessment tools or programmes recommended or adopted by international organizations or government agencies had been identified, which collectively covered 12 major regulatory functions (4 at system level and 8 at operational level) involving 9 indicator categories and 382 sub-indicators. Benchmarking drug regulatory systems was reportedly employed at national, regional and international levels for either internal assessment (mostly on regulatory system establishment, drug review process and post marketing surveillance) or external evaluation (mostly on regulatory standards, drug review process and pharmacovigilance systems) to assess current status, monitor performance, determine major challenges and inform actions for capacity building. Priority of actions in areas such as regulatory process, resources allocation, cooperation and communication, and stakeholder engagement have been suggested for strengthening drug regulatory systems. Nevertheless, the evidence about benchmarking in optimizing regulatory capacities remained underreported. Conclusion: This integrative review depicted a framework for decision-makers about why and how benchmarking drug regulatory systems should be undertaken. For effective benchmarking, well-informed decisions about the goals, the scope, the choice of reference points and benchmarking tools are essential to guide the implementation strategies. Further studies about the positive effects of regulatory benchmarking are warranted to engage continuous commitment to the practice.","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benchmarking Drug Regulatory Systems for Capacity Building: An Integrative Review of Tools, Practice and Recommendations\",\"authors\":\"Junnan Shi, Xianwen Chen, Hao Hu, Carolina Oi Lam Ung\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Benchmarking has been increasingly used on drug regulatory systems to achieve sustainable pharmaceutical system strengthening. This study aimed to identify the scope, tools and benefits of benchmarking regulatory capacities and the most recent development in such phenomenon. Method: This study employed an integrative and critical review of the literature and documents on benchmarking drug regulatory capacities identified from 6 databases and 5 websites of related organizations and government agencies in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Forty-three studies and 6 documents about regulatory benchmarking published between 2005 and 2022 were included in this review. Five benchmarking assessment tools or programmes recommended or adopted by international organizations or government agencies had been identified, which collectively covered 12 major regulatory functions (4 at system level and 8 at operational level) involving 9 indicator categories and 382 sub-indicators. Benchmarking drug regulatory systems was reportedly employed at national, regional and international levels for either internal assessment (mostly on regulatory system establishment, drug review process and post marketing surveillance) or external evaluation (mostly on regulatory standards, drug review process and pharmacovigilance systems) to assess current status, monitor performance, determine major challenges and inform actions for capacity building. Priority of actions in areas such as regulatory process, resources allocation, cooperation and communication, and stakeholder engagement have been suggested for strengthening drug regulatory systems. Nevertheless, the evidence about benchmarking in optimizing regulatory capacities remained underreported. Conclusion: This integrative review depicted a framework for decision-makers about why and how benchmarking drug regulatory systems should be undertaken. For effective benchmarking, well-informed decisions about the goals, the scope, the choice of reference points and benchmarking tools are essential to guide the implementation strategies. Further studies about the positive effects of regulatory benchmarking are warranted to engage continuous commitment to the practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Policy and Management\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Policy and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8100\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8100","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:标杆管理越来越多地用于药物监管系统,以实现可持续的制药系统加强。本研究旨在确定基准管理能力的范围、工具和好处,以及这种现象的最新发展。方法:本研究根据系统评价首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,对相关组织和政府机构的6个数据库和5个网站中关于基准药品监管能力的文献和文件进行了综合和批判性的综述。结果:本综述纳入了2005年至2022年间发表的43项关于监管基准的研究和6份文件。确定了国际组织或政府机构建议或通过的五个基准评估工具或方案,共涵盖12个主要管制职能(4个在制度一级,8个在业务一级),涉及9个指标类别和382个次级指标。据报告,在国家、区域和国际各级采用基准药物监管系统进行内部评估(主要是关于监管系统建立、药物审查程序和上市后监督)或外部评估(主要是关于监管标准、药物审查程序和药物警戒系统),以评估现状、监测绩效、确定主要挑战并为能力建设行动提供信息。建议在监管程序、资源分配、合作与沟通以及利益攸关方参与等领域优先采取行动,以加强药品监管制度。然而,关于优化监管能力的基准的证据仍然被低估。结论:这篇综合综述为决策者描述了一个框架,说明为什么以及如何开展基准药物监管系统。为了有效地进行基准测试,就目标、范围、参考点的选择和基准测试工具做出明智的决策,对于指导实施战略至关重要。进一步研究监管基准的积极影响是有必要的,以参与持续的实践承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Benchmarking Drug Regulatory Systems for Capacity Building: An Integrative Review of Tools, Practice and Recommendations
Background: Benchmarking has been increasingly used on drug regulatory systems to achieve sustainable pharmaceutical system strengthening. This study aimed to identify the scope, tools and benefits of benchmarking regulatory capacities and the most recent development in such phenomenon. Method: This study employed an integrative and critical review of the literature and documents on benchmarking drug regulatory capacities identified from 6 databases and 5 websites of related organizations and government agencies in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Forty-three studies and 6 documents about regulatory benchmarking published between 2005 and 2022 were included in this review. Five benchmarking assessment tools or programmes recommended or adopted by international organizations or government agencies had been identified, which collectively covered 12 major regulatory functions (4 at system level and 8 at operational level) involving 9 indicator categories and 382 sub-indicators. Benchmarking drug regulatory systems was reportedly employed at national, regional and international levels for either internal assessment (mostly on regulatory system establishment, drug review process and post marketing surveillance) or external evaluation (mostly on regulatory standards, drug review process and pharmacovigilance systems) to assess current status, monitor performance, determine major challenges and inform actions for capacity building. Priority of actions in areas such as regulatory process, resources allocation, cooperation and communication, and stakeholder engagement have been suggested for strengthening drug regulatory systems. Nevertheless, the evidence about benchmarking in optimizing regulatory capacities remained underreported. Conclusion: This integrative review depicted a framework for decision-makers about why and how benchmarking drug regulatory systems should be undertaken. For effective benchmarking, well-informed decisions about the goals, the scope, the choice of reference points and benchmarking tools are essential to guide the implementation strategies. Further studies about the positive effects of regulatory benchmarking are warranted to engage continuous commitment to the practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
International Journal of Health Policy and Management Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a monthly open access, peer-reviewed journal which serves as an international and interdisciplinary setting for the dissemination of health policy and management research. It brings together individual specialties from different fields, notably health management/policy/economics, epidemiology, social/public policy, and philosophy into a dynamic academic mix.
期刊最新文献
Why Are African Researchers Left Behind in Global Scientific Publications? - A Viewpoint. Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility; Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study". Phase IV Drug Trials With a Canadian Site: A Comparison of Industry and Non-Industry-Funded Trials. The Rhetoric of Decolonizing Global Health Fails to Address the Reality of Settler Colonialism. Gaza as a Case in Point. Building a Systems Map: Applying Systems Thinking to Unhealthy Commodity Industry Influence on Public Health Policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1