Program

In-person AND virtual! – We are pioneering a new conference format that will connect in-person and virtual audiences to create a unique experience. Matching the innovation that comes through our members’ work, ISPOR is pushing the boundaries of innovation to design an event that works in today’s quickly changing environment. 

In-person registration included the full virtual experience, and virtual-only attendees will be able to tune into live in-person sessions and/or watch captured in-person sessions on-demand in addition to having a variety of virtual-only sessions to attend.

Citizens' Thoughts about Implantable Medical Devices: Results of a Cross-Sectional Survey Among the General Population in Hungary

Speaker(s)

Péntek M1, Hölgyesi Á2, Tóth B1, Kozlovszky M1, Kuti J1, Weszl M3, Czere J1, Baji P4, Kovács L1, Gulácsi L1, Zrubka Z5
1Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary, 2Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, 3Semmelweis University, Budapest, PE, Hungary, 4University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, 5Óbuda University, Budapest, PE, Hungary

Presentation Documents

OBJECTIVES: The Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745) has raised the regulatory bar in terms of the required extent of clinical evidence for medical devices. We aimed to assess citizens’ knowledge on the authorisation of implantable medical devices (IMDs) to better understand the social context in which the MDR has to be implemented.

METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was performed (year 2021) involving a sample of 1400 individuals (53.7% females) aged 40+, representative for the Hungarian general population. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and digital health literacy (eHEALS) were assessed. Participants’ thoughts regarding IMD authorisation, data processing and security were explored with six questions (‘What do you think...‘; ‘yes’/’no’ responses). Descriptive statistics and subgroup comparisons for statistical differences were performed.

RESULTS: The average (SD) age was 58.3 (11.1 years), EQ-5D-5L index was 0.83 (0.26) and eHEALS score was 28.1 (5.8). The share of ‘yes’ responses were: all IMDs are authorised after clinical trials such as the drugs: 84.7%; all IMDs have a unique identifier linked to the wearing person’s data: 80.0%; patients with IMD are entered in a registry where their details are recorded: 84.6%; some IMDs send patient data to an authorised electronic database: 72.7%; electronic IMDs sending patient data are subject to security and privacy control: 71.8%; electronic IMDs could be subject to a cyber-attack: 56.2%. Participants with higher educational level and eHEALS score indicated significantly (p<0.05) more ’yes’ responses, except the ‘patient registry’ and ’cyber-attack’ questions, respectively. Citizens living with any IMD (N=433, 30.9%) indicated significantly (p<0.05) more ‘yes’ on the ‘patient registry’ question.

CONCLUSIONS: This first explorative survey revealed an overestimation of the regulatory control over IMDs and strong cyber-security concerns among the public. Educational programmes are suggested to improve citizens’ knowledge on IMDs, and to put personal data protection and cyber-security issues into a realistic perspective.

Code

MT26

Topic

Medical Technologies

Topic Subcategory

Medical Devices

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas