Fig 1.
Background description of antimicrobial samples investigated in the study.
[A]: Breakdown on the different antimicrobial classes and their active pharmaceutical ingredients. [B]: Language used in writing information on the packages and labels. [C]: Dosage forms of the samples. [D]: Origin of the samples. [E]: Comparison of the class of the antimicrobials by their origin. Legends: API – Active pharmaceutical ingredient; AMDs – antimicrobial drugs.
Fig 2.
Registration status of samples investigated.
[A]: Presence of FDA registration number on the package of the product. [B]: Presence of the FDA number on product package with respect to product origin. [C]: Presence of the FDA number on product package with respect to antimicrobial class. [D]: Relationship between the presence of the FDA number and whether the product held a valid registration status at the time of the study. [E]: Presence of the FDA number on different packaging levels of the product and whether the numbers present are the same at all levels. [F]: Distribution of registration compliance scores attained by products. [G]: Comparing the registration compliance scores of products by their origin. [H]: Comparing the registration compliance scores by their antimicrobial class. Legends: API – Active pharmaceutical ingredient; AMD(s) – antimicrobial drug(s); FDA – Food and Drugs Authority of Ghana.
Fig 3.
Quality of language and medical information on product packages.
[A]: Presence of clear and grammatically correct English language. [B]: Use of language, comprehensible and suitable for the target audience. [C]: Appropriateness of terminologies, and presence of spelling or punctuation errors. [D]: Distribution of language and information scores attained by products. [G]: Comparing the language and information scores of products by their origin. [H]: Comparing the language and information scores by antimicrobial class.
Fig 4.
Batch information consistency on product packages.
[A]: Presence of batch information on primary, secondary, and tertiary packages of products. [B]: Consistency of batch information across different packaging levels of products. [C]: Distribution of batch information consistency scores attained by products. [D]: batch information consistency scores by product origin. [E]: batch information consistency scores by antimicrobial class.
Fig 5.
Product security features on packages.
[A]: The different security features incorporated into products packages. [B]: Presence of bar/QR codes on different packaging levels and their verifiability through scanning. [C]: Distribution of product security scores attained by products. [D]: product security scores by product origin. [E]: product security scores by antimicrobial class.
Table 1.
Summary statistics of the calculated scores.
Fig 6.
Analysis of the calculated Packaging Quality Indices (PQI) of the products.
[A]: Distribution of PQI scores attained by products. [B]: Classification of quality status of the product packages. [C]: Comparing the PQI scores of products by their origin. [D]: Comparing the PQI scores by their antimicrobial class. [E]: Breakdown of PQI scores attained by the different antimicrobial classes. [F]: Breakdown of PQI scores attained by the different antimicrobials from the two origins.