You are here

TGA stakeholder survey 2017

26 April 2018

Book pagination

Confidence in the TGA

Confidence in the TGA was measured across a range of focus areas. The strongest outcomes here are observed in relation to Trustworthiness and Providing safeguards for the health of Australians, where 7 in 10 respondents indicate either high or full confidence in the TGA and minimal numbers (around one in 20) indicate low or no confidence (Table 9).

Measures of Technical competence, Fairness, Risk management and Scientifically valid decisions all show similar levels of confidence, with around six in ten participants indicating high or full confidence across these measures and 11% or fewer respondents indicating low confidence.

The measure focussing on well thought out decision making shows lower levels of confidence, with half of the sample highlighting high levels of confidence in the TGA here, and 12% showing low or no confidence.

Table 9: Confidence in the TGA (%)

Please indicate your level of confidence in the TGA in the following areas:
Statement Nett Low confidence Not at all confident Low confidence Moderate confidence High confidence Full confidence Nett High confidence N
Technical competence 8 2 6 34 48 9 57 2398
Well thought out decisions 12 3 9 39 42 7 50 2397
Providing safeguards for the health of Australians 5 2 4 25 54 16 70 2401
Fairness 10 3 7 31 48 11 58 2395
Trustworthiness 5 1 3 23 54 18 73 2394
Risk management 8 2 6 31 50 10 61 2398
Scientifically valid decisions 11 2 8 33 46 11 57 2398

The patterns observed in 2017 are almost identical to those observed in 2016. However there is a slight tendency toward lower levels of Nett high confidence. This does not translate to a trend toward higher levels of Nett low confidence, with low confidence levels generally at or just below those observed in 2016 (Table 10 and Figure 20).

Table 10: Confidence in the TGA (%)

Please indicate your level of confidence in the TGA in the following areas:
Statement Nett Low confidence Moderate confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Moderate confidence Nett High confidence Change Nett High confidence
2017 2016
Technical competence 8 34 57 12 28 61 -3
Well thought out decisions 12 39 50 15 33 52 -2
Providing safeguards for the health of Australians 5 25 70 6 19 75 -5
Fairness 10 31 58 12 28 60 -2
Trustworthiness 5 23 73 5 19 76 -3
Risk management 8 31 61 9 27 64 -3
Scientifically valid decisions 11 33 57 12 28 61 -4

Figure 20: Confidence in the TGA – 2016 vs 2017 Nett confidence (%)

Bar chart of Table 10 Nett confidence data

Responses across major stakeholder groupings (shown in Figures 21-27) highlight a general pattern where Community and Medical products industry stakeholders tend to consistently show strong levels of confidence. Those in the Government category show the lowest levels of confidence, whilst fluctuations are evident across measures in regards to Medical professional, Academic and Retailer groupings.

Figure 21: Technical competence – Confidence by Stakeholder category (%)

see Figure 21 in tabular format

Health pro: N=217; Community: N=13; Med prod ind: N=1337; Retailer: N=98; Gov: N=55; Academic: N=67; Media: N=2; Other: N=342.

Stakeholder group Nett Disagree Nett Agree
Health professional 9 53
Community member, consumer or community representative 15 69
Medical products industry 8 59
Retailer 9 62
Government 15 42
Academic 10 51
Media 50 50
Other 8 58

Figure 22: Well thought out decisions – Confidence by Stakeholder category (%)

see Figure 22 in tabular format

Health pro: N=217; Community: N=13; Med prod ind: N=1334; Retailer: N=99; Gov: N=55; Academic: N=67; Media: N=2; Other: N=343.

Stakeholder group Nett Disagree Nett Agree
Health professional 13 50
Community member, consumer or community representative 31 62
Medical products industry 11 51
Retailer 12 51
Government 16 36
Academic 12 52
Media 0 50
Other 11 48

Figure 23: Safeguards for the health of Australians – Confidence by Stakeholder category (%)

see Figure 23 in tabular format

Health pro: N=218; Community: N=13; Med prod ind: N=1339; Retailer: N=99; Gov: N=55; Academic: N=66; Media: N=2; Other: N=342.

Stakeholder group Nett Disagree Nett Agree
Health professional 5 67
Community member, consumer or community representative 23 69
Medical products industry 5 73
Retailer 8 70
Government 9 62
Academic 5 65
Media 0 50
Other 3 68

Figure 24: Fairness – Confidence by Stakeholder category (%)

see Figure 24 in tabular format

Health pro: N=218; Community: N=13; Med prod ind: N=1338; Retailer: N=99; Gov: N=55; Academic: N=66; Media: N=2; Other: N=343.

Stakeholder group Nett Disagree Nett Agree
Health professional 12 56
Community member, consumer or community representative 23 69
Medical products industry 9 60
Retailer 17 60
Government 7 55
Academic 6 59
Media 50 50
Other 10 57

Figure 25: Trustworthiness – Confidence by Stakeholder category (%)

see Figure 25 in tabular format

Health pro: N=217; Community: N=13; Med prod ind: N=1334; Retailer: N=99; Gov: N=55; Academic: N=66; Media: N=2; Other: N=343.

Stakeholder group Nett Disagree Nett Agree
Health professional 8 68
Community member, consumer or community representative 15 77
Medical products industry 3 77
Retailer 4 73
Government 5 62
Academic 3 71
Media 0 50
Other 5 67

Figure 26: Risk management – Confidence by Stakeholder category (%)

see Figure 26 in tabular format

Health pro: N=217; Community: N=13; Med prod ind: N=1337; Retailer: N=99; Gov: N=55; Academic: N=67; Media: N=2; Other: N=342.

Stakeholder group Nett Disagree Nett Agree
Health professional 8 59
Community member, consumer or community representative 23 69
Medical products industry 7 62
Retailer 11 60
Government 11 49
Academic 7 66
Media 0 50
Other 6 61

Figure 27: Scientifically valid – Confidence by Stakeholder category (%)

see Figure 27 in tabular format

Health pro: N=217; Community: N=13; Med prod ind: N=1336; Retailer: N=99; Gov: N=55; Academic: N=67; Media: N=2; Other: N=342.

Stakeholder group Nett Disagree Nett Agree
Health professional 14 57
Community member, consumer or community representative 31 62
Medical products industry 10 59
Retailer 11 53
Government 11 56
Academic 12 58
Media 0 50
Other 8 56

Table 11 shows confidence levels within the health professional grouping. Outcomes here show a notable tendency for higher confidence within the Medical practitioner group and generally fewer responses showing high confidence within the complementary healthcare practitioner category. Dental practitioners, Nurses and Pharmacists show fluctuations across measures. The small sample sizes here (particularly amongst dental practitioners) increase the likelihood of observing large fluctuations within these groups.

Table 11: Confidence in the TGA – Health professionals (%)
Health professional Technical competence Well thought out decisions Providing safeguards for the health of Australians Fairness
Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence
Complementary healthcare practitioner 13 29 29 25 13 42 33 25
Dental practitioner 13 50 13 38 13 63 13 75
Medical practitioner 11 61 9 63 4 70 11 61
Nurse 6 47 6 41 0 76 6 65
Pharmacist 10 62 10 59 3 72 17 55
Other 7 53 13 50 3 69 7 58
Table 11: Confidence in the TGA – Health professionals (%), continued
Health professional Trustworthiness Risk management Scientifically valid decisions
Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence
Complementary healthcare practitioner 35 26 13 42 21 38
Dental practitioner 25 75 25 38 29 29
Medical practitioner 4 78 9 65 13 65
Nurse 0 65 0 53 6 71
Pharmacist 10 72 10 72 7 76
Other 3 72 7 58 15 52

Comp health prac: N=23-24; Dental: N=7-8; Medical prac: N=46; Nurse: N=17; Pharmacist: N=29; Other: N=88-89.

Amongst stakeholders in the medical products industry there is a strong pattern highlighting lower levels of confidence amongst Industry association representatives (Table 12). The small number of stakeholders in this group show consistently fewer ratings of High confidence as well as the highest likelihood of providing Low confidence ratings. Both Product sponsors and Product manufacturers show generally similar views and are generally likely to show confidence levels at or just above the overall survey average. Regulatory affairs consultants show strong variation across measures, providing positive ratings In relation to Trustworthiness and Providing safeguards for Australians and generally low ratings in relation to Well thought out decisions.

Table 12: Confidence in the TGA – Medical products industry (%)
Role in Medical products industry Technical competence Well thought out decisions Providing safeguards for the health of Australians Fairness
Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence
Product sponsor 7 57 12 50 5 72 10 60
Product manufacturer 8 64 9 55 6 74 7 60
Regulatory affairs consultant 6 58 8 45 3 81 10 62
Industry association 29 29 29 7 14 36 21 21
Other 7 67 7 60 2 81 5 70
Table 12: Confidence in the TGA – Medical products industry (%), continued
Role in Medical products industry Trustworthiness Risk management Scientifically valid decisions
Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence Nett Low confidence Nett High confidence
Product sponsor 3 77 6 61 9 58
Product manufacturer 3 75 8 65 11 60
Regulatory affairs consultant 4 83 9 67 10 61
Industry association 14 50 43 7 21 14
Other 2 91 7 65 9 65

Sponsor: N=763-765; Manufacturer: N=393-396; Reg Affairs Con: N=114-115; Ind Assoc Rep: N=14; Other: N=43.

Book pagination