Cross-sectional survey assesses knowledge and attitudes towards materiovigilance among healthcare professionals, indicating a need for improved reporting practices.
Background: Materiovigilance involves monitoring and ensuring the safety of medical devices. There is a gap in understanding and awareness among healthcare professionals regarding Materiovigilance protocols and practices. The study aims to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards Materiovigilance. Methods: Convenience sampling was used to select 280 participants, including doctors, nurses, and technicians. Data questionnaires was filled through interview. The questionnaire had two parts, first included demographic profile and second contains knowledge, attitude and practice questions. Data was entered in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using SPSS version 25.0. Results: The study revealed moderate knowledge among participants, awareness of Materiovigilance programs and understanding of low-risk medical devices. Specifically, 67% of participants were aware of the Materiovigilance Program of India (MVPI), while 73% could identify low-risk medical devices. Attitudes towards Materiovigilance were generally positive, with 91% of participants believing in the link between adverse events and medical devices, and 83% acknowledging the importance of reporting such events for patient safety. Despite high awareness of reporting centers (78%) and workshops, actual reporting rates (13%) and attendance (32%) were relatively low. Conclusion: This survey examines healthcare professionals' understanding, views, and actions regarding Materiovigilance in a teaching hospital. It seeks to assess awareness and compliance with India's Materiovigilance program, aiming to identify ways to improve patient safety. While some strengths were identified, such as adequate knowledge and positive attitudes, there is a need for improved implementation through increased reporting and education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chandra et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: