Skip to main content
Log in

Attitudes towards drugs — a survey in the general population

  • Published:
Pharmacy World and Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Revicki D, Frank L. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the real world. Effectiveness versus efficacy studies. PharmacoEconomics 1999;15:423–34.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Avorn J. The prescription as final common pathway. In J Technol Assess Health Care 1995;11:384–90.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Weseley; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Ajzen I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Ann Rev Psychol 2001;52:27–58.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jarvis W, Petty R. The need to evaluate. J Pers Soc Psychol 1996;70:172–94.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Petty R, Wegener D, Fabrigar L. Attitudes and attitude change. Ann Rev Psychol 1997;48:609–47.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Fiscella K, Franks P, Clancy C. Skepticism toward medical care and health care utilization. Med Care 1998;36:180–9.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

  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. 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. 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. Statistics Sweden. Living Conditions. Report no 76. Health and medical care 1980-1989. Örebro: SCB-tryck; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  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. SAS Institute Inc. The SAS system for windows, Release 6.12. Cary,NC, USA; 1989-96.

  23. BMDP Statistical Software Version 7.0. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press; 1992.

  24. Verbrugge L. Gender and health: an update on hypothesis and evidence. J Health Soc Behav 1985;1985:156–82.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Isacson D. Pharmacological patterns among heavy users of prescription drugs. J Soc Adm Pharm 1987;5:12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Dowell J, Hudson H. A qualitative study of medication-taking behaviour in primary care. Fam Pract 1997;14:369–75.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Cramer J, Scheyer R, Mattson R. Compliance decline between clinic visits. Arch Int Med 1990;150:1509–10.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Genazzani A, M. G. Hormone replacement therapy: the perspectives for the 21st centry. Maturitas 1999;32:11–7.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Sherif K. Benefits and risks of oral contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:S343–8.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Zeitoun K, Carr B. Is there an increased risk of stroke associated with oral contraceptives. Drug Saf 1999;20:467–73.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Committee on Safety of Medicines. Combined oral contraceptives and thromboembolism. London: CSM; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Astin J. Why patients use alternative medicine: results from a national study. JAMA 1998;279:1548–3.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Holland J. Use of alternative medicine-a marker for distress. New Engl J Med 1999;340:1758–9.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Siahpush M. Why do people favour alternative medicine. Aust NZJ Med 1999;23:266–71.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: John Wiley; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Petty R, Krosnick J, editors. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Isacson, D., Bingefors, K. Attitudes towards drugs — a survey in the general population. Pharm World Sci 24, 104–110 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016127320051

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016127320051

Navigation