‘Where and how do you buy medicines?’ A pilot survey of consumption strategies among the public in Sweden

Abstract Background Substandard and falsified (SF) medical products are a major danger to public health. They affect every region of the world, and have been identified in all major therapeutic categories. Studies from medicine, pharmacology, law and public health dominate this research area with a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of public health (Oxford, England) England), 2020-08, Vol.42 (3), p.e268-e271
Hauptverfasser: Lundin, S, Liu, R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Substandard and falsified (SF) medical products are a major danger to public health. They affect every region of the world, and have been identified in all major therapeutic categories. Studies from medicine, pharmacology, law and public health dominate this research area with a focus on the supply side. However, the spread of SF medical products cannot be fully understood without information about the demand side or a sociocultural perspective on market formation. The aim of this short report is to present findings from a pilot study that examines the attitudes of the Swedish public regarding consumption of medicines. Methods We conducted a pilot survey in 2016 ‘Where and how do you buy medicines?’ using LimeSurvey, an open-source online survey software. In total 155 respondents completed the survey. Results The majority of respondents turn to doctors within healthcare for prescription-only medicines (POM). Simultaneously, some respondents would consider buying POMs without prior contact with experts even if medicines may come from unsafe sources. Conclusions There is a tendency that people move away from formal healthcare towards an unregulated market. In parallel, people’s approach to doctors becomes more personalized and pragmatic than in former patriarchal relationships. Risk becomes a negotiable concept.
ISSN:1741-3842
1741-3850
1741-3850
DOI:10.1093/pubmed/fdz075