4.2 Article

Drug use among children under 5 with respiratory illness and/or diarrhoea in a rural district of Vietnam

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 448-453

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1730

关键词

respiratory illness; diarrhoea; rational use of drug; antibiotic use; children; Vietnam

资金

  1. Sida/SAREC, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To describe the pattern of drug use among the children with respiratory illnesses and/or diarrhoea; and to analyze the association between various socio-economic factors and pattern of drug use. Methods A population-based survey of 4087 children under five was conducted within the framework of an epidemiological surveillance site in a rural district of Vietnam. Through interviewing mothers or caretakers, data on self-reported illness, use of drugs, and use of health services during 2 weeks prior to the survey and other background information were collected. Results Out of 4087 children, 1836 children had respiratory illness and/or diarrhoea during 2 weeks before the interview and drugs were used in the majority of cases. Antibiotics (72.2%) and analgesics/antipyretics (53.5%) were the drugs most commonly reported. Corticosteroids were used in 11.6% of all cases. Among children with diarrhoea, Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS) was used in 9.7%, while anti-diarrhoea drugs were used in 36.1% of all cases. There was a significant association between the family's socio-economic condition and use of corticosteroids, but to a lesser degree regarding other drugs. There was no significant association between pattern of drug use and type of health service consulted. Conclusions There are major problems about irrational drug use among children. The treatment guidelines for respiratory illness and diarrhoea are not followed. Urgent actions are needed and should target all actors in the field, mothers, doctors, pharmacy staff, and authorities in order to improve this situation. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据