When is a medicine unwanted, how is it disposed, and how might safe disposal be promoted? Insights from the Australian population
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective The aim of the present study was to explore disposal practices of unwanted medicines in a representative sample of Australian adults, compare this with previous household waste surveys and explore awareness of the National Return and Disposal of Unwanted Medicines (RUM) Project. Methods A 10-min online survey was developed, piloted and conducted with an existing research panel of adult individuals. Survey questions recorded demographics, the presence of unwanted medicines in the home, medicine disposal practices and concerns about unwanted medicines. Descriptive statistical analyses and rank-ordered logit regression were conducted. Results Sixty per cent of 4302 respondents reported having unwanted medicines in their household. Medicines were primarily kept just in case they were needed again and one-third of these medicines were expired. Two-thirds of respondents disposed of medicines with the household garbage and approximately one-quarter poured medicines down the drain. Only 17.6% of respondents had heard of the RUM Project, although, once informed, 91.7% stated that they would use it. Respondents ranked the risk of unintended ingestion as the most important public health message for future social marketing campaigns. Conclusions Respondents were largely unaware of the RUM Project, yet were willing to use it once informed. Limited awareness could lead to environmental or public health risks, and targeted information campaigns are needed. What is known about the topic? There is a growing international evidence base on how people dispose of unwanted medicines and the negative consequences, particularly the environmental effects of inappropriate disposal. Although insight into variation in disposal methods is increasing, knowledge of how people perceive risks and awareness of inappropriate disposal methods is more limited. What does this paper add? This study provides evidence of inappropriate medicines disposal and potential stockpiling of medicines in Australian households that could contribute to environmental and/or public health risks. It also reveals possible trends towards a higher frequency of inappropriate disposal practices in the Australian context. Insights into respondents' perceptions of associated risks and awareness of a national scheme for appropriate disposal of medicines have not previously been reported. What are the implications for practitioners? The findings of the present study provide important insights for all health professionals as stakeholders in the quality use of medicines. It is important for those health professionals who assist consumers to manage their medicines to have strategies in place that routinely identify potential stockpiling and inform consumers about appropriate methods of medicines disposal. Although the findings of this study are specific to the Australian context, they may usefully inform policy, public health campaigns and the individual practices of health professionals and other stakeholders in promoting the quality use of medicines nationally and internationally.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».