MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416840377 · doi:10.3389/jpps.2025.15249

Reuse of unused medications: a cross-sectional study on public willingness and influencing factors

2025· article· en· W4416840377 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faten Alhomoud, Sakinah Alalwyat, Lama Alanzi, Farah Kais Alhomoud, Sarah M. Khayyat, Khalid A. Alamer, Basmah Alfageh, Mohra Aladwani, Abdullah A. Alhifany

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReusePharmacyDescriptive statisticsQuality (philosophy)PharmacistWillingness to payHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medication waste is a significant global concern with environmental, economic, and healthcare implications. In Saudi Arabia, approximately 25.8% of dispensed medications are wasted, resulting in an annual cost of $150 million. Re-dispensing unused medications has been proposed to reduce this waste; however, its feasibility depends on public acceptance, regulatory frameworks, and assurances of safety. This study aimed to assess the Saudi public's willingness to accept re-dispensed medications returned unused to pharmacies and to identify factors influencing this willingness. A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted online across Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire, adapted from a validated tool by McRae et al. McRae et al. (Pharmacy (Basel), 2021, 9(2): 77) and translated into Arabic, explored demographics, medication practices, storage and disposal, and attitudes towards medication waste and re-dispensing. The survey was distributed via social media. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 29, including chi-squared tests and binary logistic regression. A total of 405 participants completed the survey, primarily female (64%) and aged 25-44 years (43%). About 64% reported having unused medications at home, most commonly stored in bedrooms (55.1%) and kitchens (53.6%). Disposal practices included keeping medicines for future use (62.5%), discarding them with household waste (45.7%), sharing them with others (21.5%), and returning unused medications to a pharmacy (8.4%). Approximately 60% were willing to accept re-dispensed tablets and 55% capsules, whereas fewer accepted other dosage forms. Key factors influencing acceptance included pharmacist verification of quality and integrity (79.3%), informed consent (77.3%), expiry dates (77%), and intact packaging (74.8%). Most participants (68.1%) indicated they would return unused medicines if a re-dispensing program were implemented, and half (50.6%) believed all medications, not only expensive ones, should be considered. Significant predictors of willingness included age (P < 0.001), employment status (P = 0.004), regular prescription use (P = 0.046), and concern about waste (P < 0.001). Younger participants showed higher acceptance, while employed individuals, retirees, and regular medication users were more hesitant. The findings indicate cautious yet notable public support for medication re-dispensing in Saudi Arabia, particularly for oral solid dosage forms, provided rigorous safety measures are assured. Policymakers should consider these insights to guide initiatives aimed at reducing medication waste.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsFrench-language works237,207