↓ Skip to main content

Household antimicrobial self-medication: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the burden, risk factors and outcomes in developing countries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
294 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
657 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Household antimicrobial self-medication: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the burden, risk factors and outcomes in developing countries
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2109-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moses Ocan, Ekwaro A. Obuku, Freddie Bwanga, Dickens Akena, Sennono Richard, Jasper Ogwal-Okeng, Celestino Obua

Abstract

Antimicrobial self-medication is common in most low and middle income countries (LMICs). However there has been no systematic review on non-prescription antimicrobial use in these settings. This review thus intended to establish the burden, risk factors and effects of antimicrobial self-medication in Low and Middle Income Countries. In 2012, we registered a systematic review protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42012002508). We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Embase databases using the following terms; "self-medication", "non-prescription", 'self-treatment', "antimicrobial", "antimalarial", "antibiotic", "antibacterial" "2002-2012" and combining them using Boolean operators. We performed independent and duplicate screening and abstraction of study administrative data, prevalence, determinants, type of antimicrobial agent, source, disease conditions, inappropriate use, drug adverse events and clinical outcomes of antibiotic self-medication where possible. We performed a Random Effects Meta-analysis. A total of thirty four (34) studies involving 31,340 participants were included in the review. The overall prevalence of antimicrobial self-medication was 38.8 % (95 % CI: 29.5-48.1). Most studies assessed non-prescription use of antibacterial (17/34: 50 %) and antimalarial (5/34: 14.7 %) agents. The common disease symptoms managed were, respiratory (50 %), fever (47 %) and gastrointestinal (45 %). The major sources of antimicrobials included, pharmacies (65.5 %), leftover drugs (50 %) and drug shops (37.5 %). Twelve (12) studies reported inappropriate drug use; not completing dose (6/12) and sharing of medicines (4/12). The main determinants of antimicrobial self-medication include, level of education, age, gender, past successful use, severity of illness and income. Reported negative outcomes of antimicrobial self-medication included, allergies (2/34: 5.9 %), lack of cure (4/34: 11.8 %) and causing death (2/34: 5.9 %). The commonly reported positive outcome was recovery from illness (4/34: 11.8 %). The prevalence of antimicrobial self-medication is high and varies in different communities as well as by social determinants of health and is frequently associated with inappropriate drug use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 657 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 651 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 107 16%
Student > Bachelor 75 11%
Researcher 53 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 7%
Student > Postgraduate 35 5%
Other 121 18%
Unknown 219 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 148 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 78 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 5%
Social Sciences 24 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 4%
Other 107 16%
Unknown 243 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,516,140
of 25,247,084 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,681
of 16,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,016
of 270,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#30
of 293 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,247,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 293 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.