Table 3 Interview responses part 3
|  | Thailand hospital tender (n = 4) | Indonesia hospital drug purchasing (n = 4) |
|---|---|---|
Accelerators (number of mentions) | Education in evaluation techniques [3] National policy [3] Support/advice [1] Clarity of criteria [1] Simple Tools [1] | Training [3] Leadership support [2] Practical experience [1] Association support (Medical and Hospital) [1] Using local hospital data [1] Solve conflicts in interest [1] Access to data [1] |
Inhibitors (number of mentions) | Complexity of assessing criteria (all 4) Resistance to change [2] Lack of scoring definition [1] Subjectivity of some criteria [1] Practice integration [1] Need for training [1] | Lack of training and knowledge [3] Conflicts with current process [2] Industry rejection [1] Complexity of MCDA process [1] |
Stakeholders (the ones who were involved are in bold type fonts; the other were also mentioned as important) | Academic pharmacists Hospital pharmacists Head of hosp. pharmacy Head of specialty department for PTC Director of hospital Procurement pharmacists Prescribers/Clinicians Pharmaceutical industry Finance | Academic leaders Hospital director Hospital administration Clinicians/Prescribers Pharmacists (supply manager) Therapeutic committee Hospital association National Agency of Drug and Food Control of Republic of Indonesia Pharmaceutical companies Financial and legal department of hospital Patient organization |
Potential role of PAGs/POs | Advocate for the importance of product quality and high-quality products Increase awareness for the issue Patient consensus on criteria | Analysis of patient experiences to create awareness for issue Concern: potential lack of objectivity |