Prevalence of borrowing and sharing prescription medicines and associated socio-demographic factors: findings from COBERS health centres in northern Uganda

Abstract

BackgroundThe use of prescription medications without the involvement of medical professionals is a growing public health concern. Therefore this study was conducted to determine the prevalence of borrowing and sharing prescription medicines and associated socio-demographic factors among community members who had sought health care from COBERS health centres.MethodsWe conducted analytical cross – sectional study among former patients who sought treatment during the two months period prior to data collection in nine COBERS health centres. We used cluster proportional-to-size sampling method to get the numbers of research participants to be selected for interview from each COBERS site and logistic regression model was used to assess the associations.ResultsThe prevalence of borrowing prescription medication was found to be 35.9% (95% CI 33.5–38.2%) and sharing prescription medication was 32.7% (95% CI 30.4–34.9%). The Socio-demographic factors associated with borrowing prescription medicines were: age group ≤19 years (AOR = 2.64, 95%CI 1.47–4.74, p-value = 0.001); age group 20–29 years (AOR = 2.78, 95%CI 1.71–4.50, p-value≤0.001); age group 30–39 years (AOR = 1.90, 95%CI 1.18–3.06, p-value = 0.009); age group 40–49 (AOR = 1.83, 95%CI 1.15–2.92, p-value = 0.011); being a female (AOR = 2.01, 1.58–2.55, p-value< 0.001); being a Pentecostal by faith (AOR = 1.69, 95%CI 1.02–2.81, p-value = 0.042) and being Employed Salary Earner (AOR = 0.44, 95%CI 0.25–0.78, p-value = 0.005). The socio-demographic factors associated with sharing prescription medicines were: age group ≥19 years (AOR = 4.17, 95%CI 2.24–7.76, p-value< 0.001); age group 20–29 years (AOR = 3.91, 95%CI 2.46–6.29, p-value< 0.001); age group 30–39 years (AOR = 2.94, 95%CI 2.05–4.21, p-value< 0.001); age group 40–49 years (AOR = 2.22, 95%CI 1.29–3.82, p-value = 0.004); being female (AOR = 2.50, 95%CI 1.70–3.47, p-value< 0.001); being Pentecostal by faith (AOR = 2.15, 95%CI 1.15–4.03, p-value = 0.017); and being engaged in business (AOR = 1.80, 95%CI 1.16–2.80, p-value = 0.009).ConclusionA high proportion of study participants had borrowed or shared prescription medicines during the two months prior to our study. It is recommended that stakeholders sensitise the community members on the danger of borrowing and sharing prescription medicines to avert the practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40360-018-0206-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

‘Sharing may not be caring’ — Prescription medication sharing among adults in Saudi Arabia

“…This is in the range of Beyene et al’s systemic review . Previous studies from developing countries showed that the prevalence of borrowing and lending prescription medication ranged from 35–78% and 32.7–78%, respectively, which is much higher compared with the results of our study. This is because the current study focused on recent history of borrowing or lending behaviour rather than participants’ reported history of ever borrowing or lending prescription medication, the prevalence of borrowing or lending prescription medication found in the current study is likely to be an underestimate, and the true prevalence may be higher than the prevalence identified in our study.…”

“…Consistent with previous studies, painkillers, antibiotics and allergy medicine were the most frequently borrowed and lent medicines . This is possibly because, in Saudi Arabia, allergy medications and some pain medications are easily accessible and can be obtained either with or without a prescription over the counter (OTC).…”

“…Those who had unused medicines in the home were more likely to borrow prescription medicines. Our findings are also consistent with other studies which showed that ‘having leftover medicines at home’ is a reason for sharing prescription medicines . In Saudi Arabia, the possibility of obtaining four months’ supply of medication from both governmental and private care for those who have insurance cover may result in a surplus of stored medications.…”

Evaluation of Prescription Medication Sharing Among Adults in South Korea: A Cross-Sectional Survey

“…Although many studies have addressed ways to improve clinical outcomes with appropriate use of pharmacotherapy worldwide (Whelton et al, 2018), studies on medication sharing have been conducted by researchers from limited number of countries. The majority of the published studies on the topic were from countries in Europe, America, and Oceania (Daniel et al, 2003;Sorensen et al, 2003;Goldsworthy et al, 2008;Petersen et al, 2008;Goulding et al, 2011;Ward et al, 2011;Beyene et al, 2014;Dohn and Pilkington, 2014;Markotic et al, 2017;Markotic et al, 2018;Beyene et al, 2019a;Beyene et al, 2019b;Beyene et al, 2019c), very few studies were reported from African countries and Middle East (Yousif, 2002;Jassim, 2010;Sharif et al, 2010;Auta et al, 2011;Kheir et al, 2011;Ocan et al, 2015;Asmelashe Gelayee and Binega, 2017;Mostafa-Hedeab, 2018;Obol et al, 2018;Torres et al, 2019;Alhomoud, 2020), even fewer studies were conducted from countries by researchers in Asia including Korea (Ali et al, 2010;Baber et al, 2017;Atif et al, 2019). While a few studies mentioned presence of medication sharing as a part of medication misuse (Jeong, 2017;Park and Jang, 2018), no studies were found from a literature search using keywords of medication sharing from the Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), a Korean research data search engine.…”

Understanding non-recreational prescription medication-sharing behaviours: a systematic review

“…Seven studies were from the US (eight papers), 5 , 9 , 17 – 21 , 36 three from New Zealand (four papers), 8 , 22 – 24 one study each from Croatia (three papers), 25 – 27 Saudi Arabia, 28 Malaysia, 29 Nigeria, 30 Philippines, 31 Australia, 32 Ireland, 33 South Korea, 34 and Uganda. 35 Seventeen studies employed quantitative methods, 5 , 9 , 17 – 31 , 33 – 36 one was qualitative, 8 and one mixed methods. 32 …”