ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
Knowledge, attitudes and practices on substandard and falsified medicines for human and animal use in Wakiso district, Uganda.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- High Prevalence of Antimicrobial Prescribing Among Public Health Facilities in Central Uganda: Findings from Point Prevalence Survey.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
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
Background: Substandard and falsified medicines (SFMs) continue to pose a significant threat to public health globally. However, there is limited evidence on use of SFMs for both humans and animals particularly in low- and middle-income countries such as Uganda. The study assessed knowledge, attitudes and practices on SFMs for human and animal use in Wakiso District, Uganda. Methods: A cross-sectional survey that employed a structured questionnaire among 432 community members was conducted in Wakiso District. The questionnaire assessed knowledge, attitudes and practices on SFMs for human and animal use. Data was collected using the KoboCollect mobile application hosted on tablet computers. Univariate data analysis was conducted in Stata Version 14. Results: The majority of respondents (83%) stated that they had heard about SFMs although only 31% could correctly define them. Only 7% of the respondents accurately identified a falsified medicine despite 24% stating that they believed they could recognise SFMs. Almost two-thirds (62% and 60%) of the respondents disagreed that most human and animal SFMs respectively were as good as genuine medicines. Most of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that SFMs could be very dangerous for humans (96%) and for animals (95%). Respondents reported having bought products they suspected were SFMs for use in humans (14%) and animals (24%). Seeking health worker advice on the medicine brand (40%) / getting medicine from a trustworthy pharmacy (34%) for humans; and seeking a veterinary officer's advice for choosing the brand (43%) / getting medicine from a trustworthy veterinary pharmacist (29%) for animals were the most common measures respondents reported taking to ensure the medicine bought was genuine. Only 25% of the respondents mentioned informing a health worker and only 4% had reported suspicions of SFMs to the National Drug Authority. Conclusion: Despite commendable attitudes, there was generally limited knowledge and related poor practices regarding SFMs for both humans and animals. There is a need for key stakeholder engagement involving health and regulatory authorities in both human and animal medicine to increase awareness on SFMs to minimise the potential risks to health among the community.
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.