4.6 Article

Consumption of Non-Prescribed Drugs in Portugal During the Pandemic in 2021

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/ijph.2023.1606021

关键词

behind-the-counter drugs; nonprescription drugs; social determinants; Portugal; COVID-19

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Portugal liberalised the over-the-counter drugs market in 2005 and provides universal healthcare coverage in a mainly Beveridge-type health system. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced healthcare to change how services were delivered, especially increasing remote consultations in primary care. This analysis aims to find the drivers for taking non-prescribed drugs during the pandemic in Portugal and understand the role of taking prescribed drugs and attending remote medical appointments in the self-medication decision.
Objectives: Portugal liberalised the over-the-counter drugs market in 2005 and provides universal healthcare coverage in a mainly Beveridge-type health system. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced healthcare to change how services were delivered, especially increasing remote consultations in primary care. This analysis aims to find the drivers for taking non-prescribed drugs during the pandemic in Portugal. Specifically, it seeks to understand the role of taking prescribed drugs and attending remote medical appointments in the self-medication decision.Methods: In this observational study, we used data collected during the pandemic in Centre Region of Portugal and estimated logistic regression for the whole sample and stratified by sex.Results: The main findings show that people taking prescribed medications and attending a remote consultation are more likely to take non-prescribed drugs. Also, reporting unmet healthcare needs seems to motivate people to choose self-medication.Conclusion: Policy implications are pointed out concerning the health risks raised from self-medication, the role of the pharmacist advising non-prescribed drugs, and the related health risks arising from unmet healthcare needs.

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

4.6
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