ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2010
Dirt cheap and without prescription: how susceptible are young US consumers to purchasing drugs from rogue internet pharmacies?
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- eHealth literacy among college students: a systematic review with implications for eHealth education.Journal of medical Internet research · 2011Pooled it
- Quality of online pharmacies and websites selling prescription drugs: a systematic review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2011Pooled it
- How Many Instruments Do We Need? Strengths, Weaknesses, and Potentials for Further Developments of Digital Health Literacy Measurement Instruments: Narrative Overview of Reviews and Content Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Fair Balance of Prescription Drug Information on Legitimate and Illegitimate Online Pharmacy Websites.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Factors influencing user's health information discernment abilities in online health communities: based on SEM and fsQCA.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- What influences consumers' online medication purchase intentions and behavior? A scoping review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Performance-Based Measurement of eHealth Literacy: Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Illicit Online Pharmacies: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Associations between eHealth literacy, mental health-seeking attitude, and mental wellbeing among young electronic media users in China during the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Multifactor Quality and Safety Analysis of Antimicrobial Drugs Sold by Online Pharmacies That Do Not Require a Prescription: Multiphase Observational, Content Analysis, and Product Evaluation Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Article
- Online Pharmacies Selling Prescription Drugs: Systematic Review.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Exploring the use of cognitive enhancement substances among Portuguese university students.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- Is Electronic Health Literacy Associated with Learning Outcomes among Medical Students in the First Clinical Year?: A Cross-Sectional Study.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2021Article
- COVID-19 frauds: An exploratory study of victimization during a global crisis.Criminology & public policy · 2021Article
- Income-Generating Processes of Free Web-Based Digital Health Tools to Engage Patients: Qualitative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Consumers Turning to the Internet Pharmacy Market: Cross-Sectional Study on the Frequency and Attitudes of Hungarian Patients Purchasing Medications Online.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Exploring Consumer and Patient Knowledge, Behavior, and Attitude Toward Medicinal and Lifestyle Products Purchased From the Internet: A Web-Based Survey.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2016Article
- Digital danger: a review of the global public health, patient safety and cybersecurity threats posed by illicit online pharmacies.British medical bulletin · 2016Review
- Gambling involvement and increased risk of gambling problems.Journal of gambling studies · 2013Article
- Evaluating aspects of online medication safety in long-term follow-up of 136 Internet pharmacies: illegal rogue online pharmacies flourish and are long-lived.Journal of medical Internet research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWebsites of many rogue sellers of medications are accessible through links in email spam messages or via web search engines. This study examined how well students enrolled in a U.S. higher education institution could identify clearly unsafe pharmacies.
objectiveThe aim is to estimate these health consumers vulnerability to fraud by illegitimate Internet pharmacies.
methodsTwo Internet pharmacy websites, created specifically for this study, displayed multiple untrustworthy features modeled after five actual Internet drug sellers which the authors considered to be potentially dangerous to consumers. The websites had none of the safe pharmacy signs and nearly all of the danger signs specified in the Food and Drug Administration s (FDA s) guide to consumers. Participants were told that a neighborhood pharmacy charged US$165 for a one-month supply of Beozine, a bogus drug to ensure no pre-existing knowledge. After checking its price at two Internet pharmacies-$37.99 in pharmacy A and $57.60 in pharmacy B-the respondents were asked to indicate if each seller was a good place to buy the drug. Responses came from 1,914 undergraduate students who completed an online eHealth literacy assessment in 2005-2008. Participation rate was 78%.
resultsIn response to "On a scale from 0-10, how good is this pharmacy as a place for buying Beozine?" many respondents gave favorable ratings. Specifically, 50% of students who reviewed pharmacy A and 37% of students who reviewed pharmacy B chose a rating above the scale midpoint. When explaining a low drug cost, these raters related it to low operation costs, ad revenue, pressure to lower costs due to comparison shopping, and/or high sales volume. Those who said that pharmacy A or B was "a very bad place" for purchasing the drug (25%), as defined by a score of 1 or less, related low drug cost to lack of regulation, low drug quality, and/or customer information sales. About 16% of students thought that people should be advised to buy cheaper drugs at pharmacies such as these but the majority (62%) suggested that people should be warned against buying drugs from such internet sellers. Over 22% of respondents would recommend pharmacy A to friends and family (10% pharmacy B). One-third of participants supplied online health information to others for decision-making purposes. After controlling for the effects of education, health major, and age, these respondents had significantly worse judgment of Internet pharmacies than those who did not act as information suppliers.
conclusionsAt least a quarter of students, including those in health programs, cannot see multiple signs of danger displayed by rogue Internet pharmacies. Many more are likely to be misled by online sellers that use professional design, veil untrustworthy features, and mimic reputable websites. Online health information consumers would benefit from education initiatives that (1) communicate why it can be dangerous to buy medications online and that (2) develop their information evaluation skills. This study highlights the importance of regulating rogue Internet pharmacies and curbing the danger they pose to consumers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.