Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 104–110 | Cite as

Attitudes towards drugs — a survey in the general population

  • Dag Isacson
  • Kerstin Bingefors
Article

Abstract

Background: Studies have shown that many drugs have a lower effectiveness in clinical practice than would be expected from results reported in randomised controlled clinical trials. Many factors influence the use of drugs. Personal factors such as knowledge, attitudes, motivation, expectations are considered to be of particular consequence. The aim of the study was to analyse attitudes towards drugs from an epidemiological perspective.Design: Cross-sectional surveySetting:The county of Uppsala, Sweden, 1995.Results: 5,404 completed the questionnaire (response rate=68%). A majority either considered drugs as something positive, a help (60%), or as something necessary but evil (38%). A small proportion — around 2% — considered drugs as a danger. There were differences in attitudes according to education and income, self-care orientation, medication knowledge, and state of health. We also found differences in attitudes between users and non-users of certain types of drugs. Users of hypertensive drugs more often considered drugs as necessary but evil than did non-users of these drugs, while users of psychotropic drugs more often viewed drugs as something positive than did patients who did not use psychotropic drugs.Conclusion: A better understanding of the general attitudes towards drugs is important when giving both written and oral information to patients and to the public at large. It is also important to be aware of differences in attitudes between various patient groups and that certain patients, e.g., patients prescribed hypertensive drugs, could require more attention from health care professionals.

Attitudes Drugs Health Medication knowledge Self-care orientation Sociodemographic factors Sweden 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Revicki D, Frank L. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the real world. Effectiveness versus efficacy studies. PharmacoEconomics 1999;15:423–34.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avorn J. The prescription as final common pathway. In J Technol Assess Health Care 1995;11:384–90.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindström E, Bingefors K. Patient compliance with drug therapy in schizophrenia. Economic and clinical issues. Pharmaco-Economics 2000;18:105–24.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DiMatteo MR, DiNicola DD. Achieving patient compliance. The psychology of the medical practitioner's role. New York, Oxford, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt: Pergamon Press; 1982.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becker MH, Maiman LA, Kirscht JP, Haefner DP, Drachman RH, Taylor DW. Patient perception and compliance: Recent studies of the Health Belief Model. In: Haynes RB, Taylor D, W., Sackett DL, editors. Compliance in health care. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press; 1979. p. 78–109.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strecher VJ, Rosenstock IM. The Health Belief Model. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, editors. Health behavior and health education. 2nd ed. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1996. p. 41–59.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Weseley; 1975.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Montano DE, Kaspryzyk D, Taplin HT. The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, editors. Health behavior and health education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1996. p. 85–112.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter. J Health Soc Behav 1995;36:1–10.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ajzen I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Ann Rev Psychol 2001;52:27–58.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jarvis W, Petty R. The need to evaluate. J Pers Soc Psychol 1996;70:172–94.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petty R, Wegener D, Fabrigar L. Attitudes and attitude change. Ann Rev Psychol 1997;48:609–47.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cleary P, Mechanic D, Greenley J. Sex differences in medical care utilization: An empirical investigation. J Health Soc Behav 1982;23:106–19.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meininger J. Sex differences in factors associated with use of medical care and alternative illness behaviors. Soc Sci Med 1986;22:285–92.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fiscella K, Franks P, Clancy C. Skepticism toward medical care and health care utilization. Med Care 1998;36:180–9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fallsberg M. Reflections on medicines and medication-a qualitative analysis among people on long-term regimens (Thesis). Linköping University: Department of Education and Psychology; 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lisper L, Isacson D, Sjödèn P, Bingefors K. Medicated hypertensive patients' view and experience of information and communication concerning antihypertensive drugs. Patient Educ Couns 1997;32:147–55.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Antonov K. Pharmacoepidemiological studies on the use of analgesics in Sweden. Uppsala: Acta. Univ. Ups. Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Pharmacy; 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Statistics Sweden. Living Conditions. Appendix 13. Technical report for 1984-85, 1986-87 and 1988-89 years Surveys of Living Conditions. Örebro: SCB-tryck; 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Statistics Sweden. Living Conditions. Report no 76. Health and medical care 1980-1989. Örebro: SCB-tryck; 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thorslund M, Wärneryd B. Methodological research in the Swedish Surveys of Living Conditions. Problems of measurements and data collection. Soc Ind Res 1985;16:77–95.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    SAS Institute Inc. The SAS system for windows, Release 6.12. Cary,NC, USA; 1989-96.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    BMDP Statistical Software Version 7.0. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verbrugge L. Gender and health: an update on hypothesis and evidence. J Health Soc Behav 1985;1985:156–82.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Isacson D. Pharmacological patterns among heavy users of prescription drugs. J Soc Adm Pharm 1987;5:12–20.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Svarstad B, Cleary P. Gender differences in the acquisition of prescribed drugs: An epidemiological study. Med Care 1987;25:1089–98.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dowell J, Hudson H. A qualitative study of medication-taking behaviour in primary care. Fam Pract 1997;14:369–75.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lowe C, Raynor D, Courtney E, Purvis J, Teale C. Effects of self medication programme on knowledge of drugs and compliance with treatment in elderly patients. BMJ 1995;310:1229–31.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Burke L, Dunbar J, Hill M. Compliance with cardiovascular disease prevention strategies: a review of the research. Ann Behav Med 1997;19:239–63.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cramer J, Scheyer R, Mattson R. Compliance decline between clinic visits. Arch Int Med 1990;150:1509–10.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Balter M, Manheimer D, Mellinger G, Uhlenhuth E. A crosssectional comparison of anti-anxiety/sedative drug use. Curr Med Res Opin 1984;8(Suppl. 4):5–20.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mellinger G, Balter M, Uhlenhuth E. Prevalence and correlates of the long-term regular use of anxiolytics. JAMA 1984;251:375–9.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Isacson D. Long-term benzodiazepine use: factors of importance and the development of individual use patterns over time-a 13 year follow-up in a Swedish community. Soc Sci Med 1997;44:1871–80.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Benkert O, Graf-Morgenstern M, Hillert A, Sandmann J, Ehmig S, Weissbecker H, et al. Public opinion on psychotropic drugs: an analysis of the factors influencing acceptance or rejection. J Nerv Ment Dis 1997;185:151–8.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hillert A, Sandmann J, Ehmig S, Weisbecker H, Sobota K, Kepplinger H, et al. Psychopharmacological drugs as represented in the press. Results of a systematic analysis of newspapers and popular magazines. Pharmacopsychiat 1996;29:67–71.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Manheimer D, Davidson S, Balter M, Mellinger G, Cisin H, Perry H. Popular attitudes and beliefs about tranquillizers. Am J Psychiatry 1973;130:1246–53.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Angermeyer M, Däumer R, Matschinger H. Benefits and risks of psychotropic medication in the eyes of the general population: results of a survey in the Federal republic of Germany. Pharmacopsychiat 1993;26:114–20.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Priest R, Vize C, Roberts A, Roberts M. Lay people´s attitudes to treatment of depression: results of opinion poll for Defeat Depression Campaign just before its launch. BMJ 1996;313:858–9.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paykel E, Hart D, Priest R. Changes in public attitudes to depression during the Defeat Depression Campaign. Br J Psych 1998;173:519–22.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ruscher S, de Wit R, Mazmanian D. Psychiatric patients' attitudes about medication and factors affecting noncompliance. Psychiatr Serv 1997;48:82–5.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Genazzani A, M. G. Hormone replacement therapy: the perspectives for the 21st centry. Maturitas 1999;32:11–7.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Colditz G. Hormones and breast cancer: evidence and implications for consideration of risks and benefits of hormone therapy. J Womens Health 1999;8:347–57.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sherif K. Benefits and risks of oral contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:S343–8.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lewis M. Myocardial infarction and stroke in young women: what is the impact of oral contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:S68–77.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zeitoun K, Carr B. Is there an increased risk of stroke associated with oral contraceptives. Drug Saf 1999;20:467–73.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Committee on Safety of Medicines. Combined oral contraceptives and thromboembolism. London: CSM; 1995.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Farmer R, Williams T, Simpson E, Nightingale A. Effect of 1995 pill scare on rates of venous thromboembolism among women taking oral contraceptives: analysis of General Practice Database. BMJ 2000;321:477–9.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tyden T, Bingefors K, Odlind V. Oral contraceptives and compliance: reaction to cardiovascular alarm among users. Adv Contracept 1999;15:133–9.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mattsson L, Stadberg E, Milsom I. Management of hormone replacement therapy: the Swedish experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;64(Suppl 1):S3–S5.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Barentsen R. The climacteric in the Netherlands: a review of Dutch studies on epidemiology, attitudes and use of hormone replacement therapy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;64(Suppl 1):S7–S11.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hammar M, Bryhildsen J, Dabrosin L, Frisk J, Lindgren R, Nedstrand E, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and previous use of oral contraceptives among Swedish women. Maturitas 1996;25:193–9.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Astin J. Why patients use alternative medicine: results from a national study. JAMA 1998;279:1548–3.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Holland J. Use of alternative medicine-a marker for distress. New Engl J Med 1999;340:1758–9.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Siahpush M. Why do people favour alternative medicine. Aust NZJ Med 1999;23:266–71.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Furnham A, Bhagrath R. A comparison of health beliefs and behaviours of clients of orthodox and complementary medicine. Br J Clin Psychol 1993;32:237–46.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: John Wiley; 1987.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Petty R, Krosnick J, editors. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum; 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dag Isacson
    • 1
  • Kerstin Bingefors
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmacoepidemiology and PharmacoeconomicsDepartment of Pharmacy Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations