4.6 Article

Substandard and falsified medical products are a global public health threat. A pilot survey of awareness among physicians in Sweden

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 E95-E102

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy092

关键词

drug abuse; emergency care; primary care

资金

  1. Erik Philip Sorensen Foundation [H2016-015]
  2. VINNOVA [VLU14-1006, V16-0307]
  3. Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences [SAB15-0302:1]
  4. Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences [SAB15-0302:1] Funding Source: Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Substandard and falsified medical products are a public health threat, primarily associated with low- and middle-income countries. Today, the phenomenon also exists in high-income countries. Increased Internet access has opened a global market. Self-diagnosis and self-prescription have boosted the market for unregulated websites with access to falsified medicines. Aim To describe the state of knowledge and experience on SF medical products among emergency physicians (EPs) and general practitioners (GPs) in Sweden. Methods An online survey with anonymous answers from 100 EPs and 100 GPs. Physicians were recruited from TNS SIFO's medical database. The term in the survey was 'illegal and falsified medicines' which was common in Sweden at that time. It corresponds well with the term 'substandard and falsified medical products' that the WHO launched shortly after our data collection. We report our results with this term. Results In Sweden, 78.5% of the physicians had heard the term 'illegal and falsified medicines' and 36.5% had met patients they suspected had taken it. Physicians lacked awareness of the use of the reporting system and wanted more knowledge about how to deal with patients who have possibly used falsified medicines. Conclusions To meet the public health threat of SF medical products, physicians need more knowledge.

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