Dataset Information

Public Attitudes towards Medicinal Waste and Medicines Reuse in a 'Free Prescription' Healthcare System.

ABSTRACT: This study investigates public attitudes towards medicinal waste and medicines reuse within a 'free prescription' healthcare system. A quantitative online survey was employed in a sample drawn from the population of Wales, where prescription medicines have been 'free' since 2007. Qualitative interviews informed the content of the attitude statements with categorical or ordinal response options assigned. The questionnaire was hosted on the HealthWise Wales platform for 1 year from October 2017. Of the 5584 respondents, 67.2% had at least one medicine on repeat prescription. Overall, 89.1% held strong concerns about medicinal waste. High acceptance for the reuse of prescription medicines which have been returned unused by patients to pharmacies was reported for tablets (78.7%) and capsules (75.1%) if the medicine is checked by a pharmacist first (92.4% rated essential). Concerns identified related to tampering of packs (69.2%) and the need for hygienic storage (65.4%). However, those working in healthcare had less concern about the safety of reusing medicines. The level of public acceptance for the reuse of medication was higher than previously reported. This is the largest survey to capture these views to date, which has implications for the future design of medicines reuse schemes.

SUBMITTER: McRae D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8167727 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare facilities reprocess and sterilize reusable medical devices before each invasive clinical procedure, such as surgery, to prevent person-to-person or environmental transmission of pathogens through medical devices. We conducted a nationwide multi-centre cross-sectional survey in primary and secondary-care public hospitals in Nepal to assess the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare workers towards sterilization and reuse of medical devices.MethodsWe carried out a multi-centre cross-sectional survey comprising eleven primary-care (two district-level and nine district hospitals) and two secondary-care (zonal hospitals) public hospitals which covered all seven provinces of Nepal. Survey questionnaires were distributed to 234 healthcare workers including doctors, nurses, paramedics, and office assistants (involved in medical device reprocessing); 219 (93.6%) returned the completed questionnaire. Descriptive analyses of demographic information, knowledge and attitude responses of survey participants were performed. Logistic regression and ordinal regression models for complex samples were used to investigate associations between responses and independent variables.ResultsExcept for a few areas, more than 70% of healthcare workers had proper knowledge about different aspects of sterilization and reuse of medical devices. Paramedics and office assistants were less likely to have the correct knowledge in different aspects compared to nurses. Permanent staff were more likely to give correct answers to some knowledge questions compared to temporary staff. Previous infection control training was positively associated with correct responses to some knowledge items. Most of the healthcare workers had positive attitudes towards different aspects of sterilization and reuse of medical devices, and nurses were more likely to have positive attitudes compared with other staff categories.ConclusionsMost of the healthcare workers had correct knowledge and positive attitudes towards most areas of sterilization and reuse of medical devices. However, they need proper education and training in some areas such as sterilization procedures, storage of sterilized devices, prion decontamination and standard precautions.

Project description:BackgroundInnovation in healthcare technologies can result in more convenient and effective treatment that is less costly, but a persistent challenge to widespread adoption in health and social care is end user acceptability. The purpose of this study was to capture UK public opinions and attitudes to novel healthcare technologies (NHTs), and to better understand the factors that contribute to acceptance and future use.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to the UK public between April and May 2020. Respondents received brief information about four novel healthcare technologies (NHTs) in development: a laser-based tool for early diagnosis of osteoarthritis, a virtual reality tool to support diabetes self-management, a non-invasive continuous glucose monitor using microwave signals, a mobile app for patient reported monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis. They were queried on their general familiarity and attitudes to technology, and their willingness to accept each NHT in their future care. Responses were analysed using summary statistics and content analysis.ResultsKnowledge about NHTs was diverse, with respondents being more aware about the health applications of mobile apps (66%), followed by laser-based technology (63.8%), microwave signalling (28%), and virtual reality (18.3%). Increasing age and the presence of a self-reported medical condition favoured acceptability for some NHTs, whereas self-reported understanding of how the NHT works resulted in elevated acceptance scores across all NHTs presented. Common contributors to hesitancy were safety and risks from use. Respondents wanted more information and evidence to help inform their decisions, ideally provided verbally by a general practitioner or health professional. Other concerns, such as privacy, were NHT-specific but equally important in decision-making.ConclusionsEarly insight into the knowledge and preconceptions of the public about NHTs in development can assist their design and prospectively mitigate obstacles to acceptance and adoption.

Project description:Genetic modification of farm animals has not been well accepted by the public. Some modifications have the potential to improve animal welfare. One such example is the use of gene editing (i.e. CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)) to spread the naturally occurring POLLED gene, as these genetically hornless animals would not need to experience the painful procedures used to remove the horns or horn buds. The aim of the current study was to assess public attitudes regarding the use of GM to produce polled cattle. United States (US) citizens (n = 598), recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk, were asked "Do you think genetically modifying cows to be hornless would be…", and responded using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = a very bad thing, 4 = neither good nor bad, 7 = a very good thing). Participants were then asked to indicate if they would be willing to consume products from these modified animals. We excluded 164 of the original 598 participants for not completing the survey, failing any of three attention check questions, or providing no or unintelligible qualitative responses. Respondents were then asked to provide a written statement explaining their answers; these reasons were subjected to qualitative analysis. Comparison of Likert scale ratings between two groups was done using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and comparisons between more than two groups were done using the Kruskal-Wallis rank test. More people responded that the modification would be good (Likert ≥ 5; 65.7%) than bad (Likert ≤ 3; 23.1%), and that they would be willing to consume products from these animals (Likert ≥ 5; 66.0%) versus not consume these products (Likert ≤ 3; 22.6%). Qualitative analysis of the text responses showed that participant reasoning was based on several themes including animal welfare, uncertainty about the technology, and worker well-being. In conclusion, many participants reported positive attitudes towards GM polled cattle; we suggest that people may be more likely to support GM technologies when these are perceived to benefit the animal.

Project description:BackgroundOn 1 January 2018 a four-year test scheme concerning use of medicinal cannabis (MC) was enacted. It has recently been extended for four more years by the Danish Parliament permitting all Danish physicians to prescribe MC to their patients. Previous studies have shown that general practitioners (GPs) have varying prescription experience, little knowledge, and mixed attitudes about MC. However, the present evidence is still limited, and no studies exist about Danish GPs' prescription experience, knowledge, and attitudes towards MC. Therefore, our aim was to examine Danish GPs' prescription experience, knowledge, and attitudes towards MC.MethodsA national online survey-based study addressing Danish GPs was performed from September 2018 to July 2019. We performed separate multivariable logistic regression analyses including GPs' prescription experience, knowledge, and attitudes towards MC as outcome variables.ResultsA total of 427 (38.4%) of 1112 GPs completed the questionnaire. Of these, 37 (8.7%) had experience in prescribing MC. The majority had little or no knowledge about MC (80.6%) as well as a negative view on prescription of MC (71.4%) to patients. Factors associated with prescribing MC to patients were: Single-handed practices (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.1;1.8) and perception of having quite some knowledge about MC (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 2.2;10.4). Factors associated with having quite some knowledge about MC were: having a positive attitude towards prescribing MC (OR = 5.2, 95% CI 1.9;14.0), being male (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4;1.8), and being at least 60 years of age (OR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.3;6.0). Factors associated with having a positive attitude towards prescribing MC were: having quite some knowledge about MC (OR = 5.2, 95% CI 2.2;12.5) and GPs being male (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.1;1.9).ConclusionIn this first study on prescription experience, knowledge, and attitudes about MC among Danish GPs, conducted one year after the Danish test scheme was enacted, we find a very low proportion of prescribers, little knowledge, and an overall negative attitude towards MC. Among the prescribing GPs, four in ten have little to no knowledge and a negative attitude towards MC. We stress that prescribing patterns, knowledge, and attitudes may change throughout the remaining time of the test scheme.

Project description:ObjectivesTo analyse demographic, social and geographic predictors of incompliant attitudes towards prescription completion in the UK.MethodsTwo waves of the Eurobarometer survey (85.1 and 90.1) were analysed, with a final sample size of 2016. Using logistic regression, the best-fitting combination of a set of identified variables was specified. The regression output and the model-averaged importance of each variable were analysed.ResultsCompared with a median prevalence region, respondents in the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 1 London (OR = 2.358, 95% CI = 1.100-5.398) and Scotland (OR = 2.418, 95% CI = 1.083-5.693) regions were most likely to report an incompliant attitude. Respondents who correctly answered questions about whether unnecessary use of antibiotics could make them ineffective in future (OR = 0.353, 95% CI = 0.230-0.544), whether antibiotics kill viruses (OR = 0.644, 95% CI = 0.450-0.919) and whether antibiotics treat colds (OR = 0.412, 95% CI = 0.287-0.591) were less likely to report incompliant attitudes. Conversely, respondents who correctly responded that antibiotics can cause side effects (OR = 1.419, 95% CI = 1.014-1.999) were more likely to report incompliant attitudes. There was some evidence of associations between political orientation and level of compliance. Uncooperative survey respondents (OR = 2.001, 95% CI = 1.108-3.526) were more likely to report incompliant attitudes.ConclusionsIncompliant attitudes towards antibiotic prescription compliance in the UK are associated with a variety of factors, including regional geographic variation in attitudes. Knowledge about antibiotics can relate to good stewardship attitudes, but concerns over side effects are associated with poor attitudes. Further research should examine the underlying attitudes and beliefs that political orientation may be a marker for in the context of antibiotic stewardship. Survey samples reliant on self-selection are likely to be biased towards good stewardship.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Kidney cancer is often asymptomatic, leading to proposals for a screening programme. The views of the public towards introducing a new screening programme for kidney cancer are unknown. The aim of this study was to explore attitudes towards kidney cancer screening and factors influencing intention to attend a future screening programme. METHODS:We conducted an online population-based survey of 1021 adults aged 45-77 years. The main outcome measure was intention to attend four possible screening tests (urine, blood, ultrasound scan, low-dose CT) as well as extended low-dose CT scans within lung cancer screening programmes. We used multivariable regression to examine the association between intention and each screening test. RESULTS:Most participants stated that they would be 'very likely' or 'likely' to undergo each of the screening tests [urine test: n = 961 (94.1%); blood test: n = 922 (90.3%); ultrasound: n = 914 (89.5%); low-dose CT: n = 804 (78.8%); lung CT: n = 962 (95.2%)]. Greater intention to attend was associated with higher general cancer worry and less perceived burden/inconvenience about the screening tests. Less worry about the screening test was also associated with higher intention to attend, but only in those with low general cancer worry (cancer worry scale ? 5). Compared with intention to take up screening with a urine test, participants were half as likely to report that they intended to undergo blood [OR 0.56 (0.43-0.73)] or ultrasound [OR 0.50 (0.38-0.67)] testing, and half as likely again to report that they intended to take part in a screening programme featuring a low dose CT scan for kidney cancer screening alone [OR 0.19 (0.14-0.27)]. CONCLUSION:Participants in this study expressed high levels of intention to accept an invitation to screening for kidney cancer, both within a kidney cancer specific screening programme and in conjunction with lung cancer screening. The choice of screening test is likely to influence uptake. Together these findings support on-going research into kidney cancer screening tests and the potential for combining kidney cancer screening with existing or new screening programmes.