The role of evidence in consumer choice of non-prescription medicines

Author:

Bevan Marc1,Ng Yee Ching2,Cooper Joyce3,Robertson Jane1,Walkom Emily1ORCID,Chiu Simon4,Newby David A3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Waratah, NSW, Australia

2. Formerly School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Waratah, NSW, Australia

3. Discipline of Pharmacy and Experimental Pharmacology, School of Biomedical Sciences & Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

4. Clinical Research Design and Statistical Unit, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, NSW, Australia

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To identify factors influencing Australian consumer decision-making and attitudes towards non-prescription medicine (NPM) purchases, pharmacy's role in providing these medications and views around sources of evidence for effectiveness of these products. Methods Cross-sectional survey of a general population sample of 1731 adults using an Australian online consumer panel stratified by gender, age and location (State/Territory). Beliefs about NPM purchases and evidence of their efficacy were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree-strongly agree). Non-parametric measures (Ridit analysis and Mann–Whitney U-test) were used to explore associations between responses and previous experience with medicines. Key findings The most important factors when purchasing NPMs were effectiveness and safety. However, personal experience was the most common method of determining effectiveness. Most respondents believed buying NPMs in pharmacies gave access to advice, but were less likely to agree that pharmacies were associated with safe and effective treatments. Around half the respondents agreed that it is wrong to sell treatments lacking scientific evidence; many also agreed that it is up to consumers to decide what they want even without scientific evidence. Individuals experiencing an ineffective NPM were less likely to trust scientific evidence of efficacy as the sole source of effectiveness information; regular prescription medicine users often agreed that scientific evidence is needed to support effectiveness. Conclusions Consumers have conflicting views regarding the need for scientific evidence and the desire for patient autonomy in NPM purchases. This presents a challenge for pharmacists wishing to maintain professional obligations to provide evidence-based treatments to consumers.

Funder

University of Newcastle Research Infrastructure Block

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,Pharmaceutical Science,Pharmacy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3