Cross-sectional survey reveals self-medication patterns in urban households, indicating socio-economic influences.
Self-medication remains a significant public health concern worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries such as Bangladesh, where regulatory enforcement is often weak. This study examines the prevalence, behavioral risk pathways, and socio-economic determinants of self-medication in an urban municipal context. A cross-sectional household survey was conducted in Monsurabad, Pabna Municipality, from July to September 2025, involving 125 randomly selected respondents. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and binary logistic regression. All respondents reported engaging in self-medication in the past year, with 57.6% belonging to the 18–30 age group. Frequent self-medication (≥5 times annually) was observed among 44.8% of respondents. Lower educational attainment and unemployment were significantly associated with higher self-medication frequency (P < 0.05), while gender differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Medications for cough, cold, and fever were the most commonly used. EFA identified three behavioral domains—household medicine sharing/substitution, healthcare friction, and reliance on traditional remedies—that accounted for 46.5% of the total variance. Logistic regression analysis revealed that larger household size (AOR = 8.22), use of old prescriptions (AOR = 6.96), reliance on non-professional advice (AOR = 3.32), and traditional remedy use (AOR = 3.31) significantly increased the likelihood of frequent self-medication, whereas higher household income reduced the odds (AOR = 0.23). The findings suggest that self-medication in this urban setting is shaped by an interplay between socio-economic vulnerability and behavioral risk pathways, with important implications for pharmaceutical regulation, health education, and the strengthening of primary healthcare in Bangladesh.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asep Ma’mun (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: