ArticlePloS one2022
Facebook as a source of access to medicines.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The development and use of chatbots in enhancing health care access for underserved and vulnerable populations: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
- A Mixed Methods Exploration of Social Media Use for Health Information in Under-Resourced Communities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Which social media platforms facilitate monitoring the opioid crisis?PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- The online purchase of medicines - an international pharmacists' perspective.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Is There a Risk for Semaglutide Misuse? Focus on the Food and Drug Administration's FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) Pharmacovigilance Dataset.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last decade, we've observed an enormous social media development, which have recently become commercial services. Hence, we aimed to verify if Facebook might be considered as a source of access to medicines. We also intended to identify prescription (Rx) and over the counter (OTC) medicines if available on that platform. The study was conducted from January 2019 to July 2020. We investigated offers of pharmaceuticals posted on Facebook (individual posts and communities) between 2016 and 2019. Medicines were divided into Rx and OTC brands and in accordance with their possible therapeutic use. We verified whether the medicines were for sale, to exchange, or available for free. Posts and groups were investigated for example, by entering the phrase "for free," followed by a city in Poland. Out of 409 offers, 380 (92.91%) concerned Rx brands and 29 (7.09%) OTC brands. 315 (77.02%) medications were available "for free". In 47 (11.49%) cases, an "exchange" was expected, and 47 (11.49%) announcements were marked as "for sale". Cardiovascular medicines (n = 125; 30.56%) were the most popular. There were also antidiabetics (n = 38; 9.29%) and antipsychotics (n = 28; 6.84%). We also found clear candidates for misuse. These were opioids (n = 7; 1.71%), benzodiazepines (n = 2; 0.48%), clomifene (n = 1; 0.24%), and letrozole (n = 1; 0.24%). Facebook provides the possibility of uncontrolled access to medicines. The majority of offers concerned Rx brands, including opioids and benzodiazepines. Medicines offered on Facebook were mainly accessible for free. The scope and the number of medications offered on Facebook should make this issue a hazardous phenomenon.
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.