Risk perception about medication sharing among patients: a focus group qualitative study on borrowing and lending of prescription analgesics.

This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on reporting of high-quality laboratory and clinical findings in all fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Sign up for email alerts here.

52,235 Monthly downloads/views I 2.832 Impact Factor I 4.5 CiteScore I 1.2 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.655 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Risk perception about medication sharing among patients: a focus group qualitative study on borrowing and lending of prescription analgesics.

Author(s): Filipa Markotic ¹ , Davorka Vrdoljak ² , Marijana Puljiz ³ , Livia Puljak ⁴

Publication date (Electronic): 2017

Journal: Journal of pain research

Publisher: Informa UK Limited

Keywords: drugs, pain, risk awareness, risk estimation, self-medication

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPublisher PMC

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

One form of self-medication is sharing of medications, defined as borrowing or lending medications in situations where the receiver of these drugs is not the individual to whom the medications were allocated.

Most cited references 32

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies

Benedicte Carlsen, Claire Glenton (2011)

Background Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out. Methods We searched PubMed for studies that had used focus groups and that had been published in open access journals during 2008, and extracted data on the number of focus groups and on any explanation authors gave for this number. We also did a qualitative assessment of the papers with regard to how number of groups was explained and discussed. Results We identified 220 papers published in 117 journals. In these papers insufficient reporting of sample sizes was common. The number of focus groups conducted varied greatly (mean 8.4, median 5, range 1 to 96). Thirty seven (17%) studies attempted to explain the number of groups. Six studies referred to rules of thumb in the literature, three stated that they were unable to organize more groups for practical reasons, while 28 studies stated that they had reached a point of saturation. Among those stating that they had reached a point of saturation, several appeared not to have followed principles from grounded theory where data collection and analysis is an iterative process until saturation is reached. Studies with high numbers of focus groups did not offer explanations for number of groups. Too much data as a study weakness was not an issue discussed in any of the reviewed papers. Conclusions Based on these findings we suggest that journals adopt more stringent requirements for focus group method reporting. The often poor and inconsistent reporting seen in these studies may also reflect the lack of clear, evidence-based guidance about deciding on sample size. More empirical research is needed to develop focus group methodology.

0 comments Cited 158 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Risks of self-medication practices.

Maria Ruiz (2010)

Self-medication is defined as the selection and use of medicines by individuals (or a member of the individuals' family) to treat self-recognized or self-diagnosed conditions or symptoms. Several benefits have been linked to appropriate self-medication, among them: increased access to medication and relief for the patient, the active role of the patient in his or her own health care, better use of physicians and pharmacists skills and reduced (or at least optimized) burden of governments due to health expenditure linked to the treatment of minor health conditions However, self-medication is far from being a completely safe practice, in particular in the case of non-responsible self-medication. Potential risks of self-medication practices include: incorrect self-diagnosis, delays in seeking medical advice when needed, infrequent but severe adverse reactions, dangerous drug interactions, incorrect manner of administration, incorrect dosage, incorrect choice of therapy, masking of a severe disease and risk of dependence and abuse. In this short review the author analyzes recent literature on some of the most important dangers related to self-medication practices, particularly: polypharmacy and drug interactions, medications abuse or dependence, misdiagnosis and incorrect choice of treatment. The author also proposes measures that could be adopted in order to solve or improve these issues.

0 comments Cited 130 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Self-medication and non-doctor prescription practices in Pokhara valley, Western Nepal: a questionnaire-based study

PR Bhima Shankar, P Partha, N. Shenoy (2002)

Background Self-medication and non-doctor prescribing of drugs is common in developing countries. Complementary and alternative medications, especially herbs, are also commonly used. There are few studies on the use of these medications in Pokhara Valley, Western Nepal. Methods Previously briefed seventh semester medical students, using a semi-structured questionnaire, carried out the study on 142 respondents. Demographic information and information on drugs used for self-medication or prescribed by a non-allopathic doctor were collected. Results Seventy-six respondents (54%) were aged between 20 to 39 years. The majority of the respondents (72 %) stayed within 30 minutes walking distance of a health post/medical store. 59% of these respondents had taken some form of self-medication in the 6-month period preceding the study. The common reasons given for self-medication were mild illness, previous experience of treating a similar illness, and non-availability of health personnel. 70% of respondents were prescribed allopathic drugs by a non-allopathic doctor. The compounder and health assistant were common sources of medicines. Paracetamol and antimicrobials were the drugs most commonly prescribed. A significantly higher proportion of young (<40 years) male respondents had used self-medication than other groups. Conclusions Self-medication and non-doctor prescribing are common in the Pokhara valley. In addition to allopathic drugs, herbal remedies were also commonly used for self-medication. Drugs, especially antimicrobials, were not taken for the proper duration. Education to help patients decide on the appropriateness of self-medication is required.