Medicine Knowledge and Purchasing Behaviour in a South African Township: Lessons Learnt From a Pilot Study on Awareness of Substandard and Falsified Medical Products

Abstract

Background: Substandard and falsified (SF) medical products are available in informal as well as formal markets globally. South Africa has a large formal, regulated pharmaceutical sector but there has been limited attention to the existence of SF medical products and the risks posed to people in need of medication. Little is known about individuals’ medicine consumption behaviour, especially from a social sciences perspective. This study presents findings on knowledge and awareness of medicine risks amongst residents in a lower-income community in Khayamnandi in the Western Cape province of South Africa. We also reflect on challenges and lessons learnt from the data collection process.Results:Quantitative and qualitative data, using a mixed-methods approach, were collected from 41 adult (≥18 years) respondents through a survey and audio-recorded discussions around the survey questions. Comparison of the two types of data through bricolage and mixed-methods revealed inconsistencies in responses. We argue that multi-disciplinary research using a mixed-methods approach, including reflexivity regarding empirical observations, not only provides a broader knowledge, but that it also brings insights into the complex processes and ambivalent statements collected from research participants. In addition, research participants were not always open about their health-seeking behaviour and provider choices due to concerns about potential conflict of interests among different types of medical care providers in the local community. Conclusions:This is one of the few studies focusing on demand-side attitudes with regards to medicine purchasing behaviour and the potential risks this behaviour holds for the use of SF medical products in South Africa. Multi-disciplinary research using a mixed-methods approach can bring insights into the complex processes and ambivalent statements collected from research participants.