Research article

Prescription medicines, over-the-counter medicines and complementary and alternative medicines use: a comparison between baby boomers and older South Australians

  • Objective: This study examines the difference in medication use between baby boomers (born between 1946–1965) and older people (born before 1946) to determine the proportion of people combining over-the-counter (OTC) medicines and complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) use with prescription medicine use. Design: A clustered, multistage, systematic, random, self-weighting area sample was obtained and a face-to-face interview was conducted to examine the difference in use in prescription medicines, OTC, and CAM and factors associated with the use between baby boomers and older people. Setting: South Australia. Participants: Respondents aged 15 years and over participated in surveys conducted in autumn (March to May) of 2004 (n = 3015) and 2008 (n = 3,034) in which all respondents were asked to list their current medications. This study focuses on those participants whose age was in the range defined by baby boomers and older people. Main outcome measures: Proportion in each age group taking prescription medicine, OTC medicine, and CAM were determined. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationships between medication use and demographic variables. Results: The results showed that older people were not only the higher users of prescriptions medicines but also OTC medicines and CAM. Gender and education were associated with the use of CAM. Conclusions: Due to the high use of CAM and OTC, it is important for the prescriber to take a full history of medication use before prescribing to reduce potential problems associated with drug interactions.

    Citation: Bee Leng Per, Anne W Taylor, Tiffany K Gill. Prescription medicines, over-the-counter medicines and complementary and alternative medicines use: a comparison between baby boomers and older South Australians[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2019, 6(4): 380-395. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.4.380

    Related Papers:

    [1] Nguyen Tuan Hung, Vu Thu Trang, Trinh Van Tung, Nguyen Xuan Long, Ha Thi Thu, Tran Song Giang, Tran Hoang Thi Diem Ngoc, Vu Thi Thanh Mai, Nguyen Kim Oanh, Nguyen Thi Phuong, Nguyen Hang Nguyet Van, Nguyen Hanh Dung, Pham Tien Nam . COVID-19-related music-video-watching among the Vietnamese population: lessons on health education. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(3): 428-438. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021033
    [2] George Koulierakis, Anastasia Dermatis, Dimitris Zavras, Elpida Pavi . Protective behaviors during COVID-19 confinement measures in Greece: the role of anxiety, perceived risk and risky-choice framing. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(2): 281-296. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023021
    [3] Kassidy C Colton, Stephanie A Godleski, Joseph S Baschnagel, Rebecca J Houston, Shine M DeHarder . Alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic: gender, parenthood, intimate partner violence, and stress. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(2): 360-377. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023027
    [4] José Miguel Uribe-Restrepo, Alan Waich-Cohen, Laura Ospina-Pinillos, Arturo Marroquín Rivera, Sergio Castro-Díaz, Juan Agustín Patiño-Trejos, Martín Alonso Rondón Sepúlveda, Karen Ariza-Salazar, Luisa Fernanda Cardona-Porras, Carlos Gómez-Restrepo, Francisco Diez-Canseco . Mental health and psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing measures among young adults in Bogotá, Colombia. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(4): 630-643. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022044
    [5] Sameer Badri Al-Mhanna, Alexios Batrakoulis, Abdulrahman M. Sheikh, Abdulaziz A. Aldayel, Abdulwali Sabo, Mahaneem Mohamed, Hafeez Abiola Afolabi, Abdirizak Yusuf Ahmed, Sahra Isse Mohamed, Mehmet Gülü, Wan Syaheedah Wan Ghazali . Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on physical activity behavior among students in Somalia. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(2): 459-476. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024023
    [6] Yosef Mohamed-Azzam Zakout, Fayez Saud Alreshidi, Ruba Mustafa Elsaid, Hussain Gadelkarim Ahmed . The magnitude of COVID-19 related stress, anxiety and depression associated with intense mass media coverage in Saudi Arabia. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 664-678. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020052
    [7] Pradeep Kumar Sahu, Hakki Dalcik, Cannur Dalcik, Madan Mohan Gupta, Vijay Kumar Chattu, Srikanth Umakanthan . Best practices for effective implementation of online teaching and learning in medical and health professions education: during COVID-19 and beyond. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(2): 278-292. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022019
    [8] Michael O Ogundele, Hani F Ayyash, Cornelius Ani . The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on services for children and adolescents with ADHD: results from a survey of paediatricians in the United Kingdom. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(3): 542-551. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022037
    [9] Shruthi Venkatesh, Alexandra Gill, Lauren Kim, Stacey N Doan . Mothers' intentions to vaccinate their children for COVID-19. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(1): 209-218. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023016
    [10] Alexios Batrakoulis, Željko Banićević, Ivana Banićević, Ashokan Arumugam, Ivan Marović, Nemanja Krstić, Saša Obradović . Health and fitness trends in the post-COVID-19 era in the United Arab Emirates: A cross-sectional study. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(3): 861-885. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024044
  • Objective: This study examines the difference in medication use between baby boomers (born between 1946–1965) and older people (born before 1946) to determine the proportion of people combining over-the-counter (OTC) medicines and complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) use with prescription medicine use. Design: A clustered, multistage, systematic, random, self-weighting area sample was obtained and a face-to-face interview was conducted to examine the difference in use in prescription medicines, OTC, and CAM and factors associated with the use between baby boomers and older people. Setting: South Australia. Participants: Respondents aged 15 years and over participated in surveys conducted in autumn (March to May) of 2004 (n = 3015) and 2008 (n = 3,034) in which all respondents were asked to list their current medications. This study focuses on those participants whose age was in the range defined by baby boomers and older people. Main outcome measures: Proportion in each age group taking prescription medicine, OTC medicine, and CAM were determined. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationships between medication use and demographic variables. Results: The results showed that older people were not only the higher users of prescriptions medicines but also OTC medicines and CAM. Gender and education were associated with the use of CAM. Conclusions: Due to the high use of CAM and OTC, it is important for the prescriber to take a full history of medication use before prescribing to reduce potential problems associated with drug interactions.


    Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus. Since its emergence in Wuhan, China in December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had rapidly spread throughout the world following an exponential growth curve prompting it to be characterized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020 [1],[2]. As of 12.00 pm on April 12, 2020, 1,780,315 cases of Coronavirus disease 2019, including 108,828 deaths, had been reported worldwide by more than 200 countries and territories [3]. Clinical presentations of COVID-19 may take up to 14 days to appear after exposure to the virus with the symptoms range from mild illness to severe pneumonia, and other life-threating complications which may lead to death [4],[5]. In Vietnam, a lower-middle-income country with the population of more than 96 million people, the first COVID-19 case was reported on 23rd January 2020. As of 12th April 2020 there were 258 infections, 144 of the affected patients have recovered and 0 death [3]. However, the threat of spreading COVID-19 in Vietnam is predicted to increase due to unidentified sources of infection in the community.

    Hand hygiene is considered as one of the most fundamental preventive measures against many infectious diseases. Several studies have indicated that the efficacy of keeping hands clean reduced significantly the rates of infectious illnesses in the community, including diarrhea [6][9], cholera [7],[10][12], and pneumonia [6]. Besides, poor handwashing may contribute greatly to the risk of foodborne illness [13]. However, handwashing has remained an infrequent practice, especially for those who live in the least developed countries [14]. Eighteen percent of the global population (approximately 1.4 billion) had no basic handwashing facilities with soap and water available at home in 2017 [14]. A recent study conducted in 2019 in Northern mountainous provinces and the Central Highlands of Vietnam indicated that only 10% of the studied population performed hand hygiene with soap and water after defecation and this number increased to 54% after intervention activities were implemented [15].

    World Health Organization (WHO) and the Vietnam Ministry of Health (MOH) has repeatedly emphasized that regularly and thoroughly performing hand hygiene with soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub is an effective way to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 [16],[17]. This virus spreads primarily through respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes, or close personal contact, such as touching a contaminated surface and then touching eyes, noses or mouths before handwashing [5]. Therefore, promoting proper hand hygiene practices is a well-known preventive measure to control COVID-19 since effective treatment drugs and vaccines for COVID-19 are not currently available.

    Widely reporting of statistics and facts about the COVID-19 pandemic by the global media may lead to confusion and anxiety about the disease along with the preventive measures, including handwashing recommended by many organizations including WHO and MOH. This study describes the knowledge and practices of people in Vietnam about handwashing with soap and water or the alcohol-based hand rub, and the associated factors during the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

    This was a cross-sectional study.

    Participants were eligible to participate if they were adults, currently lived in Vietnam, had internet connection, able to read, and understand the provided questions. Participants voluntarily participated in an online questionnaire administered through email and social networks.

    The study sample was calculated using the one-proportion sample size formula with an absolute precision d = 0.05, design effect DE = 2, and p was the proportion of handwashing people using soap at essential times (e.g., after going out). The calculated sample size was 277 people.

    Participants were selected using non-probability, self-nominated sampling. The researchers sent the link contained online questionnaire to respondents through email, social networks (e.g., Facebook, Zalo, etc.). The online questionnaire was available from 0.00 am 25 March to 11.59 pm, 01 April 2020. At the time of the survey closing, 870 submissions were recorded. Among the submissions, 859 agreed to participate in the survey, making the response rate of 98.74%. Among those who agreed, 837 participants were included in the analysis, 22-excluded submissions were participants who had answered only 10% of total questions or fewer.

    We used Kobo Toolbox (kf.kobotoolbox.com) to develop the self-administered questionnaire and to collect data. The questionnaire could be easily accessed on any devices (e.g., computer, tablet, cellphones, etc.) with an internet connection through a link (https://ee.kobotoolbox.org/x/#Juy6CuzP). To prevent duplication, an email address was required for each time respondents submitting their responses. The average time to complete the questionnaire was approximately 10 minutes.

    The main dependent variable in this study was the correct reported practice of handwashing. It was a binary variable, which could be calculated by combining four following questions:

    1. Did the respondent choose water and soap as a primary mean to handwashing whenever it was available? (2 available choices: Yes/No).

    2. Could the respondent list ALL the 5 necessary times for handwashing? (2 available choices: Yes/No). Five mentioned necessary times were: 1) after going to the toilet, 2) after touching surfaces at public places (e.g.: elevator, doorknob, etc.), 3) before having meals, 4) before preparing meals for family and 5) after removing face mask.

    3. Did the respondent have handwashing with 6 steps? (2 available choices: Yes/No).

    4. Did the respondent have handwashing in at least 20 seconds? (2 available choices: Yes/No). (according to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations [18]).

    A participant could be considered having a correct reported practice of handwashing when he/she has answered Yes for all four above questions.

    Independent variables were socio-economic information of respondents, including gender (male/female), age (in years), the highest educational level (high school or below, vocational/college/university), occupation (student/employee/other), marital status (single, married, separated/divorced/widowed)), a source where respondents get information about handwashing (friends, relatives, health staff, internet/social networks, newspaper/television, government/MOH), and knowledge of handwashing (in points). Knowledge variable was created through a combination of nine questions and the highest score would be 33, details were described as below:

    Table 1.  Details of questions regarding knowledge of handwashing.
    No. Question Correct answer Point
    1 Diseases that could be spread by dirty hands COVID-19, acute respiratory diseases, pneumonia, diarrhea, flu, helminth, hand-foot-mouth disease Each selected disease: 1 point (max. 7 points)
    Other or do not know/do not remember: 0 point
    2 Used soap/antiseptic solution when handwashing Water and soap
    Antiseptic solution (with alcohol)
    If each correct answer or both are selected: 1 point
    3 Conditions which need handwashing Before: having meals, cooking, feeding child
    After: leaving the toilet, childcare works, contacting patients or waste, touching pets
    Each selected condition: 1 point (max. 8 points)
    Other or do not know/do not remember: 0 point
    4 In COVID-19 pandemic, apart from mentioned above conditions, when handwashing should be done After touching surfaces at public places
    After taking off face mask
    Each selected choice: 1 point
    Other choices: 0 point
    5 Necessary time for handwashing At least 20 seconds
    At least 30 seconds
    0.5 point
    1 point
    6 Describe taken steps when handwashing by water 6 steps of handwashing according to Vietnam MOH recommendations [19] Each selected condition: 1 point (max. 6 points)
    Other or do not know/do not remember: 0 point
    7 Frequency of each step when handwashing by water 5 times 1 point
    8 Describe taken steps when handwashing by antiseptic solution (with alcohol) 6 steps of handwashing according to Vietnam MOH recommendations [19] Each selected condition: 1 point (max. 6 points)
    Other or don't know/don't remember: 0 point
    9 Frequency of each step when handwashing by antiseptic solution (with alcohol) 5 times 1 point

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Both descriptive and inferential statistics were performed in this study. All independent variables were described under the main outcome by calculating frequencies and percentages. Univariate linear regression was used for each independent variable with the main outcome with a significant level of 0.05. Multiple linear regression was conducted to provide a theoretical model with collected predictors.

    This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Hanoi University of Public Health under the Decision No. 105/2020/YTCC-HD3 dated 20 March 2020. The study information about objectives, selection criteria, personal information privacy, data protection, advantages, and potential harm, were all provided to participants before doing the online questionnaire. Each participant was assigned a study number, no private data was collected, and all collected data was coded.

    The responses of 837 participants were included in the analysis. Out of 837 participants, 633 (75.7%) were female. The average age in years of the respondents was 33.3 (SD = 10.9), male respondents were older than females (35.7 vs. 32.6, respectively). Most respondents were employed, which accounted for about 60.5% while 25% of the respondents were students, and the rest of them were self-employed (4.4%), business/small business (3.8%), retired (2.8%), and other (2.3%). At the time of data collection, 23 of the63 provinces in Vietnam reported to have COVID-19 patients. In our survey, the proportion of respondents from the provinces with COVID-19 patients was about 72%. There was 64% of the respondents completing vocational/college/university as their highest educational level, while about 28% of total participants had completed postgraduate education. About half of the respondents were living with their spouse. The proportion of single respondents was 39.2%, and 3.8% of the respondents were separated/divorced/widowed.

    Table 2.  Characteristics of respondents.
    Characteristics Total (n = 837) Males (n = 203) Females (n = 634)
    Age in years, mean (SD) 33.3 10.9 35.7 11.8 32.6 10.4
    Occupational status, n (%)
     Student 220 26.3 51 25.1 169 26.7
     Employee 506 60.5 112 55.2 394 62.2
     Self-employment 37 4.4 12 5.9 25 3.9
     Business/small business 32 3.8 15 7.4 17 2.7
     Retired 23 2.8 7 3.5 16 2.5
     Other (e.g., farmer, housewife) 19 2.3 6 3.0 13 2.1
    Provinces, n (%)
     Have COVID-19 patients 601 71.8 138 68.0 463 73.0
     Do not have COVID-19 patients 236 28.2 65 32.0 171 27.0
    Highest educational level, n (%)
     High school and below 63 7.5 23 11.3 40 6.3
     Vocational/College/University 536 64.0 114 56.2 422 66.6
     Postgraduate 234 28.0 65 32.0 169 26.7
    Marital status, n (%)
     Single 328 39.2 69 34.0 259 40.9
     Living with husband/wife 477 57.0 127 62.6 350 55.2
     Separated/Divorced/Widowed 32 3.8 7 3.5 25 3.9

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Overall, the rate of respondents with correct reported practices of handwashing was 26.3%. When looking into four aspects that assessed respondents correct reported practices, using water and soap as a primary choice for hand hygiene was the aspect with the highest correct proportion, which accounted for almost 80% of the total respondents. In this survey, only 60.6% of the respondents had a correct answer for the all necessary times for handwashing, and 42.8% of the respondents could list all six steps of proper hand hygiene practices. The aspect in which the respondents had the lowest correct level was the adequate handwashing time. Only 28.4% of participants reported washing their hands in at least 20 seconds as recommended by WHO.

    Figure 1.  Respondents' reported practice of handwashing (n = 837).

    Regarding the necessary time for handwashing, the popular times at which most respondents knew that they need to perform handwashing were: after going to the toilet (96.6%), after touching surfaces at places such as elevators, doorknobs, etc. (92.1%), and before having meals (92.1%). The proportion of respondents knew that they needed to wash hands before preparing meals for their families was 84.5% and only 69.3% of respondents answered that they needed to wash hands after removing their face masks.

    Figure 2.  Respondents' information of necessary time for handwashing (n = 837).
    Table 3.  Associations (both univariate and multivariate) between the reported practice of handwashing and respondent's characteristics.
    Characteristics Univariate analysis
    Multivariate analysis
    OR 95%CI p-value OR 95%CI p-value
    Age in years 1.02 1.01–1.04 0.002 1.02 0.99–1.05 0.24
    Gender
     Male Ref Ref
     Female 1.55 1.06–2.28 0.024 1.88 1.15–3.09 0.012
    Occupational status
     Student Ref Ref
     Employee 1.94 1.32–2.87 0.001 1.92 0.97–3.79 0.06
     Other (e.g., small business, retired, farmer, housewife) 1.14 0.64–2.02 0.65 1.60 0.61–4.15 0.34
    Provinces
     Do not have COVID-19 patients Ref Ref
     Have COVID-19 patients 0.81 0.58–1.14 0.22 1.21 0.77–1.90 0.40
    Highest educational level
     High school or below Ref Ref
     Vocational/College/University 1.37 0.72–2.60 0.33 1.30 0.54–3.14 0.56
     Postgraduate 1.51 0.77–2.96 0.23 1.26 0.48–3.28 0.64
    Marital status
     Single Ref Ref
     Married 1.64 1.18–2.28 0.003 0.91 0.48–1.73 0.77
     Separated/divorced/widowed 0.87 0.34–2.19 0.76 0.39 0.11–1.42 0.15
    Getting information from:
    Friends 1.47 1.08–2.00 0.015 0.96 0.51–1.81 0.89
    Relatives 1.31 0.96–1.79 0.09 1.09 0.58–2.06 0.78
    Health staffs 3.03 2.05–4.47 <0.001 2.96 1.70–5.13 <0.001
    Internet/social networks 0.78 0.48–1.25 0.30 0.44 0.21–0.96 0.04
    Newspaper/Television 0.79 0.51–1.24 0.31 0.41 0.20–0.87 0.019
    Government/MOH 2.16 1.20–3.87 0.01 1.64 0.76–3.53 0.21
    Knowledge of handwashing (points) 1.34 1.25–1.43 <0.001 1.30 1.20–1.41 <0.001

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Some characteristics were found to be statistically significant with reported practices of handwashing among the participants in the univariate analysis including age, gender, occupational status, marital status, getting COVID-19 information from friends, health staff, government/MOH, and knowledge of handwashing (in points). When adjusting all variables in multivariate analysis, female respondents were found likely to be 1.88 times (95% CI: 1.15–3.09) higher to have correct reported practices of handwashing than males. We also found that respondents who received information regarding handwashing from health staff had the odds of reported handwashing correctly 2.96 times (95% CI: 1.70–5.13) higher than those who did not. This survey also revealed the negative impacts of internet/social networks and newspaper/television on the reported practice of handwashing among the respondents. In detail, the participants who received hand hygiene information from the internet/social networks had 56% (95% CI: 4–79%) chances lower to wash hands correctly than those who did not. The same trend was observed among the respondents getting information from newspaper/television with a proportion of 59% (95% CI: 13–80%). At last, respondents who had more knowledge of handwashing correctly could have correct reported practices of this behavior, for each point increased in knowledge, the odds of reported practices correctly increased 1.3 times (95% CI: 1.2–1.41).

    Our multivariate analysis did not found characteristics including age, occupational status, original provinces, educational level, marital status, getting information from friends, relatives, government/MOH to be associated with correct reported practices of handwashing among participants.

    The study results showed that the prevalence of people reported washing their hands with clean water and soap as their primary choice was remarkably high (79.3%). This result was relevant with the recommendation from the Vietnamese MOH that people should perform handwashing with soap and clean water. This method is considered as the priority measure for handwashing and the sterilized sanitizer is recommended only when soap and water are not available [20]. Our study found that participants' reported practices on handwashing (including handwashing with soap and with sterilized sanitizers) were rather high (60.6%) at essential times such as after defecation, before meals, before processing meals for family members, after contact with public places such as lifts, public corridors or doorknobs, and after removing masks during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. This prevalence was significantly higher comparing to that during the non-pandemic time in which the prevalence of handwashing with soap and water among the community was reported to be very low at 10% after defecation [21]. The group of mothers of children under 5 years old is considered as a priority target group in all health communication programs in Vietnam, however, the handwashing practice rate among this group was only 24.3% at the essential times [22]. The remarkably high prevalence of reported handwashing of the community during the COVID-19 pandemic could be due in part to the fact that the Vietnamese Government did a very comprehensive communication strategy about COVID-19. The communication strategy included frequent delivery of information about the danger of COVID-19, its rapid transmission, and the prevention methods, including handwashing with soap and water, and with sterilized sanitizers to all mobile and Zalo users in Vietnam. As of January 2020, there were 145.8 million mobile users in Vietnam which is about 150% of the total population of the country. The number of internet users was 68.17 million, of whom, 74% used Zalo-the number three popular social media in Vietnam after Facebook and YouTube [23]. Therefore, it could be concluded that COVID-19 related information was disseminated to almost Vietnamese people. Also, mass media and the internet presented COVID-19 information at an exceedingly high frequency. These together might have contributed to the high prevalence of the reported handwashing practice. Another reason that may contribute to the explanation of the high frequency of reported handwashing was due to the unawareness of the community about the COVID-19, as it is the emerging infectious disease that happened in late 2019 in China. The unawareness might lead to the community's panic and outrage about the disease, especially when the number of cases surge daily, with 1,780,315 cases and 108,828 deaths in 211 countries and territories in the world at 12.00 pm of 12th April 2020 [3]. According to Sandman (2012), the risk was characterized as hazard and outrage [24], therefore, people might have considered COVID-19 as a seriously dangerous disease and might have paid a lot of attention to the disease, including handwashing as a prevention measure.

    However, the high frequencies of reported handwashing at essential times in this study might not have implied that the actual handwashing practices of the participants were that high, as many of the studies around the world have shown that the reported handwashing practices were much higher than observational handwashing behaviors [25],[26], even higher than 40 times in reported handwashing practices versus actual practices [25]. Therefore, the Vietnamese Government needs to regularly focus on the importance of handwashing with soap in prevention of COVID-19 disease and other infectious diseases transmitted via contaminated hands to maintain the high prevalence of handwashing at essential times, not only during the pandemic time but also in all the time, and therefore could contribute to the decrease of various preventable infectious diseases.

    The study revealed that only 42.8% of the participants reported practicing all six steps during handwashing and only 28.4% performed hand hygiene for at least 20 seconds recommended by WHO [27], making the total prevalence of correct reported handwashing practice was only 26.3%. Although the Government had implemented comprehensive measures to prevent and control the disease, including the “Nationwide Social Distancing” Decree in 15 days, starting from 0.00 1st April 2020 [28], this result implies that the intervention strategy of the Vietnamese Government to improve community's awareness and practices on COVID-19 prevention should also focus on how to guide the community to practice proper handwashing to effectively prevent of the spread of the disease in the community.

    It revealed from our study that female participants had better reported practices on handwashing than male participants (Table 3), which was consistent with other studies' results in Vietnam among child caretakers [22], a group of adolescents in Malaysia [29], and in an online survey in Hong Kong [30] although these studies did not collect data during the pandemic while our study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Many international studies [31] and studies in Vietnam [22],[32] showed that educational level was an important factor affecting handwashing practices. However, a contrast result was obtained in our study. As discussed above, the frequent delivery of information about COVID-19 prevention and control measures to every mobile and Zalo users in Vietnam by the Vietnamese MOH and the Vietnamese Government could be a feasible reason to explain this result.

    Besides, various studies showed that better knowledge associated with better reported handwashing practices [29],[33]. A similar trend was also observed in this study, with an increase of 1 knowledge score on handwashing contributed to the odds ratio of 1.3 (95% CI: 1.20–1.41) in reported handwashing practices. Intervention studies on sanitation and hygiene also confirmed that intervention to increase knowledge on handwashing would contribute to the increase in handwashing practices [21],[34].

    One interesting finding from this study was that participants who obtained knowledge on handwashing from the internet sources (internet/social network) or newspapers/television had poorer handwashing practices that those who did not receive knowledge from these sources. The participants who gained knowledge from healthcare staff had better reported handwashing practices than those who did not get information from this staff. As suggested by Sandman (2012) above, due to the uncertain of the COVID-19 disease, the community's outrage for this disease increased and therefore contributed to the increased perception on the risk of the disease [24]. Based on the increased community outrage, fake news about the disease was quite common, especially on the internet and social media, which might have led to the poorer reported handwashing practices.

    Although certain interesting results were found in this study, our study is subject to several limitations. First, our sample was not representative because we only collected data online, which might have resulted in most of the respondents were at higher educational levels (more than 90% had the college/university levels or higher). Other studies found that users of the internet were not representative of the general population, and not all felt familiar with the online protocol [35]. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic with social distancing suggestion and later ordered by the Government Decree on the 1st of April 2020 [28], an online survey was the most convenient and feasible method for data collection. Secondly, all the study team members worked for a public health education institution, therefore, many of their social media friends might also interrelate to public health or medicine. This might lead to a higher chance of giving “right options” in the questionnaire as they know clearly interrelate to public health or medicine. We must accept this bias and consider it as a limitation for this study. Thirdly, due to the social distancing Decree of the Vietnamese Government, only online data collection was undertaken, and therefore we could only collect reported handwashing practices. This might have implied that the prevalence of reported handwashing practices might have much higher than the actual practice, as shown by various studies in the world [25],[26]. However, as explained earlier, due to the fear of acquiring COVID-19 during the pandemic, people tended to follow and undertake preventable measures, including handwashing practices [23], therefore these reported practices might have been relatively higher than that of the non-pandemic time. Last but not least, we did not collect data about respondents' income, place of living (urban, rural) in the data collection, the presence of handwashing places, and soap in their houses, although these variables are considered important indicators for handwashing practices. However, as we explained earlier, the data collection was undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic, and handwashing with soap was not the only measure to be encouraged by the Vietnamese Government. Alcohol-based hand rub was also encouraged to be used to prevent COVID-19, especially when water and soap were not available. Therefore, we could only focus on collecting data by provinces/cities where there were COVID-19 patients and on educational messages that our respondents received from the MOH and the Government during the time of data collection.

    Although handwashing practices at all essential times recorded in this study was rather high, the prevalence of practiced washing hand correctly was low, mainly due to the incorrect practice on the six handwashing steps and the minimum required time for handwashing. The Government should pay attention to the communication strategy on COVID-19 prevention measures to the citizens, with a focus on the six steps of handwashing and the minimum required time for handwashing. Also, the Government should remind the Vietnamese people to select appropriate and reliable information on COVID-19 pandemic for references, especially information on the internet, social media, newspapers, etc.


    Abbreviation ABS: Australian Bureau of Statistics; ALSA: Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing; CAM: complementary and alternative medicines; GP: General Practitioner; HOS: Health Omnibus Survey; OTC: over-the-counter medicines; PROS: Population Research and Outcome Studies; IQCA: Interviewer Quality Control Australia; CI: confidence interval; SA: South Australia; SD: standard deviation; OR: odds ratio;

    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    [1] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2008) Population projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101. Canberra. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3222.02006%20to%202101.
    [2] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) Disability and ageing: Australian population patterns and implications Canberra: 2000. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/disability-and-ageing-australian-population/contents/table-of-contents.
    [3] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) South Australia‟s baby boomer: a profile. Canberra: 2003. Available from: https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/91071EDDF27A0E58CA256DDA000 2C431/$File/4149455001_2003.pdf.
    [4] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Baby boomers and the 2001 census. Canberra: 2003. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110129.NSF/f128006d2d1e7c10ca2566fd0081ba4b/3cd1 2b553c337b4aca256d050000ec99!OpenDocument.
    [5] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Population by Age and Sex, Regions of Australia, 2014. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/3235.0Feature%20Article12014?op endocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3235.0&issue=2014&num=&view.
    [6] Qato DM, Alexander GC, Conti RM, et al. (2008) Use of prescription and over-the-counter medications and dietary supplements among older adults in the United States. JAMA 300: 2867–2869. doi: 10.1001/jama.2008.892
    [7] National Center for Health Statistic (2011) Health, United States, 2011. U.S. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf.
    [8] Espino DV, Lichtenstein MJ, Hazuda HP, et al. (1998) Correlates of Prescription and Over-the-Counter Medication Usage Among Older Mexican Americans: The Hispanic EPESE Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 46: 1229–1234.
    [9] National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2011) Complementary and Alternative Medicine: What people aged 50 and older discuss with their health care providers. USA: NIS. Available from: https://nccih.nih.gov/sites/nccam.nih.gov/files/news/camstats/2010/NCCAM_aarp_survey.pdf.
    [10] Franchi C, Tettamanti M, Pasina L, et al. (2014) Changes in drug prescribing to Italian community-dwelling elderly people: the EPIFARM–Elderly Project 2000–2010. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 70: 437–443. doi: 10.1007/s00228-013-1621-6
    [11] Linjakumpu T, Hartikainen S, Klaukka T, et al. (2002) Use of medications and polypharmacy are increasing among the elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 55: 809–817. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00411-0
    [12] Helling DK, Lemke JH, Semla TP, et al. (1987) Medication use characteristics in the elderly: the Iowa 65+ Rural Health Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 35: 4–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1987.tb01312.x
    [13] Stoehr GP, Ganguli M, Seaberg EC, et al. (1997) Over-the-counter medication use in an older rural community: the MoVIES Project. J Am Geriatr Soc 45: 158–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb04501.x
    [14] Darnell JC, Murray MD, Martz BL, et al. (1986) Medication use by ambulatory elderly. An in-home survey. J Am Geriatr Soc 34: 1–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1986.tb06332.x
    [15] Cadigan DA, Magaziner J, Fedder DO (1989) Polymedicine use among community resident older women: how much a problem? Am J Public Health 79: 1537–1540. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.79.11.1537
    [16] Hanlon JT, Fillenbaum GG, Burchett B, et al. (1992) Drug-use patterns among black and nonblack community-dwelling elderly. Ann Pharmacother 26: 679–685. doi: 10.1177/106002809202600514
    [17] Goh L, Vitry A, Semple S, et al. (2009) Self-medication with over-the-counter drugs and complementary medications in South Australia's elderly population. BMC Complement Altern Med 9: 42. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-9-42
    [18] The National Institute of Complementary Medicine (NICM) (2009) Facts and Statistics 2009. Sydney: NICM.
    [19] Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Therapeutic Goods Regulation: Complementary medicines. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2011. Available from: https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/201112%20Audit%20Report%20No%203.pdf.
    [20] Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, et al. (2017) What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriatr 17: 230.
    [21] Hilmer SN (2008) The dilemma of polypharmacy. Aust Prescr 31: 2–3. doi: 10.18773/austprescr.2008.001
    [22] Hovstadius B, Petersson G (2012) Factors leading to excessive polypharmacy. Clin Geriatr Med 28: 159. doi: 10.1016/j.cger.2012.01.001
    [23] Wilson DH, Wakefield M, Taylor AW (1992) The South Australian Health Omnibus Survey. Health Promot J Aust 2: 47–49.
    [24] Australian Government Department of Health. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Canberra, 2017. Available from: https://www.tga.gov.au/types-complementary-medicines.
    [25] Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied Logistic regression, 2nd ed, New York: J Wiley and Sons.
    [26] Brown K (2004) Key experiences of „baby boom‟ cohorts. Department of Family and Community Services Canberra 2002–2003. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2004. Available from: https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/australiansocialpolicy2002-03.pdf.
    [27] Buckley J (2008) Baby boomers, obesity, and social change. Obes Res Clin Pract 2: 73–82. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2008.04.002
    [28] Morgan TK, Williamson M, Pirotta M, et al. (2012) A national census of medicines uses: 2 24-hour snapshot of Australians aged 50 years and older. Med J Aust 196: 50–55. doi: 10.5694/mja11.10698
    [29] Kit BK, Ogden CL, Flegal KM, et al. (2012) Prescription Medication Use Among Normal Weight, Overweight, and Obese Adults, United States, 2005–2008. Ann Epidemiol 22: 112–119. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.10.010
    [30] Stewart RB, Moore MT, May FE, et al. (1991) A longitudinal evaluation of drug use in an ambulatory elderly people. J Clin Epidemiol 44: 1353–1359. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90096-R
    [31] Chrischilles EA, Foley DJ, Wallace RB, et al. (1992) Use of medications by persons 65 and over: data from the established populations for epidemiologic studies of the elderly. J Gerontol 47: M137–144. doi: 10.1093/geronj/47.5.M137
    [32] Cohen I, Rogers P, Burke V, et al. (1998) Predictors of medication use, compliance and symptoms of hypotension in a community-based sample of elderly men and women. J Clin Pharm Ther 23: 423–432. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2710.1998.00183.x
    [33] Amoako EP, Richardson-Campbell L, Kennedy-Malone L (2003) Self-medication with over-the-counter drugs among elderly adults. J Gerontol Nurs 29: 10–15.
    [34] Hanlon JT, Fillenbaum GG, Ruby CM, et al. (2001) Epidemiology of over-the-counter drug use in community dwelling elderly: United States perspective. Drugs Aging 18: 123–131. doi: 10.2165/00002512-200118020-00005
    [35] Arthritis Australia. Arthritis Information Sheet: Complementary therapies. Available from: https://arthritisaustralia.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ComplementaryTherapies_0118.pdf.
    [36] Colquhoun D, Ferriera-Jardim A, Udell T, et al. (2008) Fish, fish oils, n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cardiovascular health. Victoria: National Heart Foundation of Australia. . Available from: https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/images/uploads/main/For_professionals/Fish-FishOils-revie-of-evidence.pdf.
    [37] Schaffer AL, Buckley NA, Dobbins TA, et al. (2015) The crux of the matter: Did the ABC's Catalyst program change statin use in Australia? Med J Aust 202: 591–595. doi: 10.5694/mja15.00103
    [38] Wold RS, Lopez ST, Yau CL, et al. (2005) Increasing trends in elderly persons‟ use of nonvitamin, nonmineral dietary supplements and concurrent use of medications. J Am Diet Assoc 105: 54–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2004.11.002
    [39] Luskin FM, Dinucci EM, Newell KA, et al. (2003) Select populations: elderly patients. In: John WS, Joseph JJ, eds. Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2nd ed. Saint Louis: Mosby, 482–502.
    [40] Xue CC, Zhang AL, Lin V, et al. (2007) Complementary and alternative medicine use in Australia: a national population-based survey. J Altern Complement Med 13: 643–650. doi: 10.1089/acm.2006.6355
    [41] MacLennan AH, Myers SP, Taylor AW (2006) The continuing use of complementary and alternative medicine in South Australia: costs and beliefs in 2004. Med J Aust 184: 27–31. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00092.x
    [42] Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, et al. (1993) Unconventional medicine in the United States: prevalence, costs, and patterns of use. N Engl J Med 328: 246–252. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199301283280406
    [43] Vinks THA, Egberts TCG, de Lange TM, et al. (2009) Pharmacist-based medication review reduces potential drug-related problems in the elderly: the SMOG controlled trial. Drugs Aging 26: 123–133. doi: 10.2165/0002512-200926020-00004
    [44] Jorgensen T, Johansson S, Kennerfalk A, et al. (2001) Prescription drug use, diagnoses, and healthcare utilization among the elderly. Ann Pharmacother 35: 1004–1009. doi: 10.1345/aph.10351
    [45] Robinson A, McGrail MR (2004) Disclosure of CAM use to medical practitioners: a review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Complement Ther Med 12: 90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2004.09.006
    [46] Rogers J (2011) Personal health budgets: A new way of accessing complementary therapies? Complement Ther Clin Pract 17: 76–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2010.12.002
    [47] Kim HJ, Chun KH, Kim DJ, et al. (2011) Utilization patterns and cost of complementary and alternative medicine compared to conventional medicine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 93: 115–122. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.03.031
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Ha Van Nhu, Tran Thi Tuyet-Hanh, Nguyen Thi Anh Van, Tran Nu Quy Linh, Truong Quang Tien, Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of the Vietnamese as Key Factors in Controlling COVID-19, 2020, 45, 0094-5145, 1263, 10.1007/s10900-020-00919-4
    2. Minh Cuong Duong, Hong Trang Nguyen, Bich Thuy Duong, Minh Thuy Vu, The Levels of COVID-19 Related Health Literacy among University Students in Vietnam, 2021, 53, 2093-2340, 10.3947/ic.2020.0152
    3. Minh Cuong Duong, Hong Trang Nguyen, Bich Thuy Duong, A Cross-Sectional Study of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Towards Face Mask Use Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic Amongst University Students in Vietnam, 2021, 0094-5145, 10.1007/s10900-021-00981-6
    4. Bartosz M. Nowak, Cezary Miedziarek, Szymon Pełczyński, Piotr Rzymski, Misinformation, Fears and Adherence to Preventive Measures during the Early Phase of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study in Poland, 2021, 18, 1660-4601, 12266, 10.3390/ijerph182212266
    5. Chunwen Xiao, Duy Anh Le, Nikita Makarchev, Handwashing behaviour among adults in rural Vietnam: a cross-sectional mixed methods study, 2022, 0790-0627, 1, 10.1080/07900627.2021.2014303
    6. Minh Cuong Duong, Hong Trang Nguyen, Bich Thuy Duong, Minh Thuy Vu, Assessment of Hand Hygiene Practices of University Students in Vietnam Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Brief Report, 2022, 16, 1935-7893, 1844, 10.1017/dmp.2021.256
    7. Pham Tien Thanh, Le Thanh Tung, Can risk communication in mass media improve compliance behavior in the COVID-19 pandemic? Evidence from Vietnam, 2022, 42, 0144-333X, 909, 10.1108/IJSSP-05-2021-0122
    8. Louis Lebel, Hap Navy, Phoummixay Siharath, Chau Thi Minh Long, Nilar Aung, Phimphakan Lebel, Chu Thai Hoanh, Boripat Lebel, COVID-19 and household water insecurities in vulnerable communities in the Mekong Region, 2022, 1387-585X, 10.1007/s10668-022-02182-0
    9. Ananda Selva Das, 2024, 9780443156656, 241, 10.1016/B978-0-443-15665-6.00004-X
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(4767) PDF downloads(387) Cited by(8)

Figures and Tables

Tables(4)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog