Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Adult Vaccines (1)
- Antidiabetic (1)
- Antidiabetikum (1)
- Cost-effectiveness (1)
- Diabetes mellitus (1)
- Diabetes mellitus Typ 2 (1)
- Education (1)
- Effizienz (1)
- Impfung (1)
- Income (1)
Institute
- Fakultät III - Medien, Information und Design (3) (remove)
Background: Immunization is the most cost-effective intervention for infectious diseases which are the major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. There is a scarcity of information on the vaccination status of young adults and the role of socioeconomic conditions in India. Objectives: Present study explored the adult vaccination status and influence of income and education of parents on adult vaccination status in university students from Mumbai, India.
Methods: On the basis of the eligibility criterion 149 students were selected for the present study. A total of 8 vaccines namely Tdap/DTP, Varicella, MMR, Influenza, Pneumococcal, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B and Meningococcal were included in this study for all the respondents. In addition to these vaccines, Human Papilloma Virus vaccine was also included for female respondents.
Results: There were total of 149 (75 male and 74 females) respondents with the mean age of 21.5 years. The top 3 immunizations were Td/Tdap (97.3%), MMR (66.4%) and Hepatitis B (55%) among the respondents. Only 4 (5.5%) female respondents have been immunized against the HPV. Conclusions: Td/Tdap (97.3%) and MMR (66.4%) coverage was in line with the recommendations. For all the other vaccines the coverage was low varying from 5.5% to 35.4%. The vaccination coverage was better in respondents with higher educated and higher income parents. We suggest that patient education, planning by government for the implementation of policy for adult vaccination and involvement of physicians are must for better adult vaccination coverage.
A systematic review of the literature on survey questionnaires to assess self-medication practices
(2017)
Self-medication is of great public health importance as it often bypasses regulatory mechanisms to assure quality of health care. Nevertheless there are no established standards on how to assess self-medication. We therefore intended to systematically retrieve questionnaires and survey tools used to capture self-medication, with the aim to identify the scope of information investigated in this context and commonalities between the tools. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on questionnaires used for self-medication assessment by searching PubMed and Web of Science databases using the combinations of following keywords; self-medication, self-prescription, non-prescription, questionnaire. Truncation was used to ensure retrieval of all possible variations of search terms. The search was limited to articles published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2015, human studies and English language. Duplicate and irrelevant studies were excluded from the final review. A total of 158 studies were included in the review. Studies were from diverse geographical locations, most of the studies were from Nigeria 16 (10.1%) followed by India 10 (6.3%) and Iran 8 (5%). Forty-three studies (27.2%) focused on antibiotic self-medication. Majority of the studies (106; 67%) were done with adult populations. The components addressed by the questionnaires covered: reasons for self-medications in 147 (93%) studies, purchasing source in 136 (86%) studies, medical conditions to be treated in 153 (96.8%) studies, adverse events in 67 (42.4%) studies, use of prescribing information in 24 (15.1%) studies and antibiotic resistance awareness in 20 (46.5%) antibiotic studies. For 74 (46.8%) studies, survey questionnaires were self-administered and most studies (57; 36%) were done at homes of respondents. Thirty-seven (23.4%) studies did not report any recall period for self-medication practices. Study response rates varied from 17.9% to 100%, and while validity of the study questionnaire was reported for 100 (63.3%) studies, 15 (9.5%) studies reported reliability test of the study questionnaire. There is a large variety of questionnaires being used for investigating self-medication practices making comparability and meta-analyses very difficult. It is desirable to have a basic set of standardized survey questions on this topic to make available for future research groups in this field.
Background: Diabetes is fast gaining the status of a potential epidemic in India, with >62 million individuals currently diagnosed with the disease. India currently faces an uncertain future in relation to the potential burden that diabetes may impose on the country. An estimated US$ 2.2 billion would be needed to sufficiently treat all cases of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in India. Many interventions can reduce the burden of this disease. However, health care resources are limited; thus, interventions for diabetes treatment should be prioritized. The present study assesses the cost-effectiveness of antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2DM from Mumbai, India.
Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2DM. Face-to-face interviews were conducted by using a validated questionnaire in a total of 152 (76 males, 76 females) patients with T2DM from F-North Ward, Mumbai, India. Cost-effectiveness was determined on the basis of cost of antidiabetic drug/s, efficacy, adverse drug reactions, safety of administration, frequency of administration, and bioavailability.
Results: For treatment of T2DM in non-obese participants, Glimepiride+Pioglitazone costed least (`3.7) per unit of effectiveness followed by Glimepiride (`6.6), Gliclazide (`8.1), Repaglinide (`24.5), and Vildagliptin (`45.2). For treatment of T2DM in obese participants, Metformin cost least (` 6.7) per unit of effectiveness followed by Glimepiride + Metformin (`5.9) and Repaglinide (`24.5).
Conclusions: In case of non-obese participants, cost effectiveness and prescribed treatments did not show a match, while for obese participants prescribed treatments were in line with cost effectiveness.