Consumer Impressions of the Safety and Effectiveness of OTC Medicines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The public generally believes OTC medicines to be helpful for treating minor ailments. From a survey point of view, that position often originates from feedback obtained when these medicines are considered as one broad category. The objective of the study was to assess the properties of 15 categories of agents across three dimensions-effectiveness, safety, and familiarity. Data were gathered via an online non-random survey in one Canadian province, where residents were asked to consider 15 OTC medicine categories in terms of those dimensions. Five hundred and seventy-five completed surveys were obtained out of 3000 sent. On the 10-point effectiveness scale, values ranged from 5.1 (Athlete's foot cream) to 7.3 (headache medicine). For safety, the medicines were closely grouped (6.0 to 7.4). Cough syrups for children were perceived as less safe than those for adults. There was a trend in that, as product familiarity grew, so did impressions of safety and effectiveness. The results support other reports where OTC medicines are described as safe and effective, although safety ratings were not particularly high. Responders considered these medicines to generally be higher in safety than effectiveness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".