IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0004202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The good, the bad, and the ugly: Compliance of e-pharmacies serving India and Kenya with regulatory requirements and best practices

Author

Listed:
  • Gautam Satheesh
  • Sammy Masibo
  • Sasi Kumar Tiruttani
  • Irene Khayoni
  • Benjamin Palafox
  • Devaki Nambiar
  • Jaison Joseph
  • Emmanuel Kweyu
  • Abdul Salam
  • Francis Wafula
  • Catherine Goodman

Abstract

As with most technology-driven change, e-pharmacy markets have expanded faster than the pace of regulation, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. We developed and applied a checklist to assess compliance with best practices and regulations by e-pharmacies serving clients in India and Kenya, two countries with contrasting regulatory environments. We defined e-pharmacies as businesses selling prescription-only medicines directly to consumers through websites or apps. We identified the universe of e-pharmacies through online searches, and captured data using a structured questionnaire (Jan–May 2023). We then assessed e-pharmacies against a set of global ‘best practice’ standards, as well as national regulations (for Kenya) and ‘proposed requirements’ from local guidelines and draft bills (for India, which had no e-pharmacy-specific regulations). We identified 61 websites and 37 apps serving India, and 26 websites and 3 apps serving Kenya. Regarding best practices, a facility to upload prescriptions was provided by 90% of websites serving India and 58% serving Kenya. Only 16% (India) and 42% (Kenya) provided complete drug information. On average, websites serving Kenya met 8.9 of the 12 (74%) Kenyan regulatory requirements, while those serving India met 7.5 of the 14 (54%) ‘proposed requirements’. Only 31% serving Kenya and none serving India displayed required registration numbers. Contrary to regulations/guidelines, many e-pharmacies serving Kenya (62%) and India (34%) listed narcotic/controlled drugs for sale. In both countries, high-traffic websites and e-pharmacies located within the study country had higher mean compliance to regulation and best practices compared to the others. These findings can be leveraged to strengthen enforcement in Kenya and inform the development of a comprehensive regulatory framework in India. We recommend a risk-based regulatory approach, where regulators work with the largely compliant (“good”) e-pharmacies, improve enforcement among the partially compliant (“bad”), and eliminate the largely non-compliant (“ugly”) from the market.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Gautam Satheesh & Sammy Masibo & Sasi Kumar Tiruttani & Irene Khayoni & Benjamin Palafox & Devaki Nambiar & Jaison Joseph & Emmanuel Kweyu & Abdul Salam & Francis Wafula & Catherine Goodman, 2025. "The good, the bad, and the ugly: Compliance of e-pharmacies serving India and Kenya with regulatory requirements and best practices," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(2), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0004202
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0004202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0004202
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0004202&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004202?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yam B. Limbu & Bruce A. Huhmann, 2023. "Illicit Online Pharmacies: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(9), pages 1-16, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0004202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.