Pharmacy World & Science

, 32:81 | Cite as

Validating the Children’s Medicines Use Questionnaire (CMUQ) in Australia

  • Michelle Halim
  • Heather Vincent
  • Bandana Saini
  • Katri Hämeen-Anttila
  • Kirsti Vainio
  • Rebekah MolesEmail author
Research Article


Objective: To pilot test the validity and reliability of the English version of the Children’s Medicines Questionnaire (CMUQ) and to explore the attitudes of Australian caregivers towards the use of medicines in children. Setting: Survey of Australian parents and primary care givers of children 0–15 years. Methods: The questionnaire was translated from Finnish to English then back-translated to ensure semantic equivalence. A total of 153 parents/main caregiver of a child aged 0–15 years were recruited via convenience sampling. Construct validity of the attitudinal section of the CMUQ was performed using exploratory factor analysis. Reliability was assessed using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient as a marker of internal consistency. Three focus groups were conducted to explore participants’ attitudes towards medicating children and to triangulate quantitative data. Main outcome measure: Construct validity and internal reliability of the CMUQ. Results: Factor analysis generated a parsimonious four factor solution explaining 50% of variance in the data. The four subscales representing the four factor solution each returned a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient >0.6, indicating good internal consistency. Participants in focus groups were satisfied with the structure and content of the questionnaire. There were 5 emergent themes through focus group discussions with parents and primary care givers of children, regarding the perception of medicines use in children. These included, ‘concerns about the negative effects of medicines’, ‘medicines are useful, necessary and safe in treating illnesses in children’, ‘the body’s natural processes are sufficient in fighting illness’, ‘over the counter medicines are effective and useful in treating illness’, ‘perception of alternative medicines use in children’. Conclusions: The CMUQ is a valid and reliable tool to measure parents’ medicine use for their children in an Australian sample. Although small modifications should be made, this instrument will be valuable in informing the development of medicines information for this cohort in the future.


Attitude Australian children Child Factor analysis Medicines use Over the counter medicines Prescription medicines Questionnaire 



The authors would like to acknowledge the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) for presenting the “Young Scientists award for professional innovation” (1000 Euros) to Dr Moles, which has made the collaborative work with the Finnish authors possible. The Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, offers infrastructure support for students undertaking an honours project in this case Ms Michelle Halim, and this is acknowledged.


The project was not funded through any research grants.

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2006. Australia’s Health 2006 [Internet]. Canberra: AIHW cat. no. AUS 73, ISBN-13 978 1 74024 565 4; 2006 June [cited 2007 July 6]. Available from:
  2. 2.
    Al-Yaman F, Bryant M, Sargeant H. Australia’s Children 2002: their health and wellbeing [Internet]. Canberra: AIHW cat no PHE 36, ISBN-13978 1 74024 182 3; 2002 May [cited 2007 June 28]. Available from:
  3. 3.
    Britt H, Knox S. The contribution of demographic and morbidity factors to self-reported visit frequency of patients: a cross-sectional study of general practice in Australia. BMC Fam Pract. 2004;5(17):1471–2296.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Health Survey 1995: use of medications. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 1999 (Australian Bureau of Statistics Catalogue No. 4377.0). ISBN 0 642 23173 7.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birchley N, Conroy S. Parental management of over-the-counter medicines. Pediatr Nurs. 2002;14(9):24–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allotey P, Reidpath D, Elisha D. “Social medication” and the control of children: a qualitative study of over-the-counter medication among Australian children. Pediatrics. 2004;114(3):378–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chien C, Marriott JL, Ashby K, Ozanne-Smith J. Unintentional ingestion of over-the-counter medications in children less than 5 years old. J Paediatr Child Health. 2003;39(4):264–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menacker F, Minian N, Bush PJ, Bibace R. Children and medicines: what they want to know and how they want to learn. J Soc Adm Pharm. 1999;16:38–52.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hämeen-Anttila K, Airaksinen M, Vainio K, Bush PJ, Ahonen R. Developing a medicine education program in Finland: lessons learned. Health Policy. 2006;78:272–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chambers CT, McGrath PJ, Finley GA. Self administration of over-the-counter medication for pain among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:449–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hämeen-Anttila K. Education before medication—empowering children as medicine users [dissertation]. [Kuopio]: University of Kuopio; 2006. ISBN 951-27-0407-2.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs. National school drug education strategy [Internet]. Australia, 1999 [cited 2007 April 27]. Available from:
  13. 13.
    Klaukka T, Martikainen, J, Kalimo, E. Drug utilization in Finland 1964–1987. Publications of the social insurance institution no M:71, Helsinki 1990. ISBN 951 669-304-0.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arinen S, Häkkinen U, Klaukka T, Klavus J, Lehtonen R, Aro S. Health and the use of health services in Finland: main findings of the Finnish Health Care Survey 1995/96 and changes from 1987. Health Care. 1998;5:53–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Britten N. Patients’ ideas about medicines: a qualitative study in a general practice population. Br J Gen Pract. 1994;44(387):465–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Britten N, Ukoumunne OC, Boulton MG. Patients’ attitudes to medicines and expectations for prescriptions. Health Expect. 2002;5(3):256–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hair J, Anderson RE, Tathham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis with readings. 4th rev. ed. New York, NY: Prentice Hall international, Inc.; 1995. ISBN: 978-0139133107.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows, Rel. 14.0.1. 2005. Chicago: SPSS Inc. [program].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    20. Carmines E, Zeller, R. Reliability and validity assessment. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-017. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Pubns; 1979. 1SBN-13:978-0-803913714Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Systat software Inc. San Jose, CA, USA [program].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaiser HF. A second-generation little jiffy. Psychometricka. 1970;35:401–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using multivariate statistics. 3rd ed. USA: Harper Collins College Publishers Inc.; 1996. ISBN: 978-0673994141.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pett M, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pubns; 2003. ISBN: 978-0761919506.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dunteman G. Principal components analysis. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. A Sage University Paper. 1989. ISBN: 9780803931046.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1997. ISBN: 978-0335206438.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neuman W. Social research methods—qualitative and quantitative approaches. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2003. ISBN:978-0205457939.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Comrey A, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992. ISBN:978-0805810622.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Health Survey 2004–5: Summary of Results. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2006 (Australian Bureau of Statistics Catalogue No. 4363.0). 2006. ISBN 0 642 23141 9 [Internet] Cited 2009 Aug 9]. Available from:
  30. 30.
    Hughes R, Durio H. Patterns of childcare information seeking by families. Fam Relat. 1983;32(2):203–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vainio K, Airaksinen M, Vaisanen T, Enlund H. Assessing the importance of community pharmacists as providers of drug information. Appl Ther. 2004;5:24–9.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pan Y, Henderson J, Britt H. Antibiotic prescribing in Australian general practice: how has it changed from 1990–91 to 2002–03? Respir Med. 2006;100:2004–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McClung H, Murray R, Heitlinger L. The internet as a source for current patient information. Pediatrics. 1998;101(6):2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hämeen-Anttila K, Englund A, Ahonen R. How often schoolchildren use OTC-medicines. DOSIS. 2005;21:180–7.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Simon H, Weinkle DA. Over-the-counter medications. Do parents give what they intend to give? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151(7):654–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wingert WE, Mundy LA, Collins GL, Chmara ES. Possible role of pseudoephedrine and other over-the-counter cold medications in the deaths of very young children. J Forensic Sci. 2007;52(2):487–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Halim
    • 1
  • Heather Vincent
    • 2
  • Bandana Saini
    • 1
  • Katri Hämeen-Anttila
    • 3
  • Kirsti Vainio
    • 3
  • Rebekah Moles
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Discipline of Pharmacy Practice, Pharmacy FacultyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Pharmacy Practice and Social Pharmacy, The Pharmacy SchoolUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  3. 3.Department of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of KuopioKuopioFinland

Personalised recommendations