Mallah Narmeen, Battaglia Julia, Figueiras Adolfo, Takkouche Bahi
Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBER-ESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain.
J Clin Med. 2021 Oct 21;10(21):4827. doi: 10.3390/jcm10214827.
Research about the association of knowledge and attitudes with practices (KAP) of non-medical tranquilizer use is scarce. We compared findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches in a KAP-based study on non-medical tranquilizer use in Spain using data collected from the same population. Eight-hundred forty-seven participants completed a validated KAP questionnaire at baseline and were then followed-up bimonthly for one year for episodes of non-medical tranquilizer use. Non-medical use was defined as unprescribed use, non-adherence to treatment, storage/sharing of tranquilizers, or a combination of those practices. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using logistic regression from cross-sectional data and generalized linear mixed models for repeated measures in the longitudinal approach. Only the longitudinal approach showed that limited knowledge about the effect of tranquilizers on behaviour [OR: 3.24 (95% CI: 1.12-9.38)] and about the negative effect of their excessive consumption [OR: 4.12 (95% CI: 1.5-11.33)] is associated with storing/sharing tranquilizers. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses indicated that personal attitudes towards tranquilizers and attitudes towards healthcare providers are associated with non-medical tranquilizer use, yet with different magnitude of associations. Differences between the two approaches were also observed for individual types of non-medical use. Certain discrepancies exist between findings from longitudinal and cross-sectional approaches on KAP of non-medical tranquilizer use. KAP studies are the backbone for designing and evaluating prevention programs on non-medical tranquilizer use, and hence choosing a proper study design, scrutinizing the associated biases, and carefully interpreting findings from those studies are required.
关于非医疗用镇静剂使用的知识、态度与行为(KAP)之间关联的研究很少。我们在一项基于KAP的西班牙非医疗用镇静剂使用研究中,使用从同一人群收集的数据,比较了横断面研究和纵向研究的结果。847名参与者在基线时完成了一份经过验证的KAP问卷,然后每两个月随访一次,持续一年,以了解非医疗用镇静剂的使用情况。非医疗使用被定义为未按处方使用、不遵守治疗、储存/分享镇静剂或这些行为的组合。使用横断面数据的逻辑回归和纵向研究中重复测量的广义线性混合模型估计调整后的优势比(OR)及其95%置信区间(CI)。只有纵向研究表明,对镇静剂对行为影响的了解有限[OR:3.24(95%CI:1.12 - 9.38)]以及对过度使用镇静剂负面影响的了解有限[OR:4.12(95%CI:1.5 - 11.33)]与储存/分享镇静剂有关。横断面分析和纵向分析均表明,个人对镇静剂的态度以及对医疗保健提供者的态度与非医疗用镇静剂的使用有关,但关联程度不同。在非医疗使用的个体类型方面,两种方法也存在差异。在非医疗用镇静剂使用的KAP纵向研究和横断面研究结果之间存在某些差异。KAP研究是设计和评估非医疗用镇静剂使用预防项目的基础,因此需要选择合适的研究设计,仔细审查相关偏差,并认真解释这些研究的结果。