, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 332–346 | Cite as

Profile of Drug Use in Urban and Rural India

  • Bhardwaja Dineshkumar
  • Thummala C. Raghuram
  • Garispati Radhaiah
  • Kamala Krishnaswamy
Original Research Article


Information on pharmacoepidemiology is particularly important in developing countries where a rational drug policy has not been adopted. In the present study, a profile of 1769 doctors’ prescriptions and 763 self-orders1 were monitored at pharmacy outlets in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and 4 rural areas of Andhra Pradesh with the aim of identifying urban and rural differences, if any, in the self-medication rate, prescription costs, types of drugs purchased and factors influencing self-medication.

Self-medication, expressed as the percentage of the total population that self-medicates, was found to be high in urban areas (37%) compared with rural areas (17%), and the majority of the over-the-counter sales were for prescription-only drugs. The majority of physicians’ prescriptions were incomplete with respect to diagnosis and dosage regimen. The mean cost of the drugs purchased on doctors’ prescriptions was 2-fold higher than the cost of drugs sold over the counter.

A higher proportion of patients from rural areas (80%) purchased all the prescribed drugs compared with those from urban areas (54%). Financial constraints in urban areas were a major determinant in the partial purchase of prescribed drugs. In addition, the urban elite (i.e. professional people with high incomes, who comprise 18% of the total population) considered that all of the prescribed drugs were not necessary for their present disease.

Nutritional products, potent compounds with analgesic, antipyretic and anti-inflammatory effects, and broad spectrum antibiotics constituted a high proportion of prescriptions in both urban and rural areas.

The consumption of food supplements was higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Based on WHO criteria, most of the drugs (60%) prescribed in rural areas were nonessential, compared with 47% in urban areas.

The results of this study emphasise the need for comprehensive measures, induding information, training, legislation and education at all levels of the drug delivery system, to rationalise drug therapy by improving prescribing patterns and influencing self-medication.


Rural Area Adis International Limited Dipyrone Therapeutic Category Nutritional Product 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Vance MA, Millington WR. Principles of irrational drug therapy. Int J Health Serv 1986; 16: 355–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fukuchima M. The overdose of drugs in Japan. Nature 1989; 342: 850–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denig P, Ruskamp FMA, Zusling DH. How physicians choose drugs. Soc Sci Med 1988; 27: 1381–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The rational use of drugs and WHO. Dev Dialogue 1985; 2: 1–4Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krishnaswamy K. Rational use of drugs and other therapies. Meeting of social and health scientists to promote collaboration in health system research. 1989 May 1–4: New Delhi. New Delhi: WHO South East Asian Regional Office, 1989Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lunde PMK, Levy M. Drug utilization: geographical differences and clinical implications. In: Duchene-Marcullaz P, editor. Advances in pharmacology and therapeutics. Vol. 6. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1978: 77–82Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    WHO Expert Committee. The selection of essential drugs. WHO Tech Rep Ser 1977; 615: 7–36Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crooks J. Epidemiology and clinical pharmacology: their contribution to patient care. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1983; 16: 351–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waole O. The concept of drug utilization studies. In: Bergman N, Grimson A, Wahiba AHW, et al., editors. Studies in drug utilization. Copenhagen: WHO, 1979: 3–27Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tomson Y, Wessling A, Tomson G. General practitioners for rational use of drugs. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 47: 213–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mant A. Pharmaceutical health promotion: a new concept in therapeutics. Soc Sci Med 1994; 39: 305–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laporli JR, Porta M, Capella D. Drug utilization studies: a tool for determining the effectiveness of drug use. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1983; 16: 301–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gandhi NI. Drug and pharmaceutical scenario. East Pharm 1991; 34: 21–8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaitonde B. Essential drugs in the context of India. East Pharm 1988; 31: 25–8Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stanulovi OM, Jakovleis OV, Ron Cevi ON. Drug utilization in paediatrics: non-medical factors affecting decision making by prescribers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1984; 27: 237–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwartz RK, Soumerai SB, Avom J. Physicians motivations for non-scientific drug prescribing. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 577–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krishnaswamy K, Kumar BD, Radhaiah G. A drug survey­precepts and practices. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1985; 29: 363–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krishnaswamy K, Radhaiah G, Raghuram TC. Drug usage survey in selected populations. Indian J Pharmacol 1983; 15: 175–83Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murthy MV. Sampling theory and methods. New Delhi: Indian Statistical Institute, 1967: 218–46Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Work Study Part III. Work measurement and other associated techniques. New Delhi: Secretariat Training School, Ministry of Home Affairs, 1967: 62–77Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaju BP, Saxena RS. OTC sale of drugs: a boon or curse for the Indian society. East Pharm 1986; 29: 51–4Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buchanan N. Self medication in a developing country. S Afr Med J 1979; 56: 609–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peach H. Trends in self prescribing and attitude of self medication. Practitioner 1983; 227: 1609–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Joubert PH, Sebata PDB, Van Runen OR. Self medication in developing community. S Afr Med J 1984; 65: 129–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Greenhalgh T. Drug prescription and self medication in India. An exploratory survey. Soc Sci Med 1987; 25: 307–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barwani S, Panton R, Morley A. A survey of public opinion about the community pharmacist as a source ofhealth service. Pharm J 1987; 239: R15–7Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gilson MR. Pharmacist in practice. In: Osol A, Gennaro AR, Gibson MR, et al., editors. Remington’s pharmaceutical sciences. Easton, PA: Mack Publications, 1975: 28–36Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Richards JW. Pharmaceutical economics and management. In: Osol A, Gennaro AR, Gibson MR, et al., editors. Remington’s pharmaceutical sciences. Easton, PA: Mack Publications, 1975: 1866–85Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barnett A, Creese AJ, Ayivor EC. The economics of pharmaceutical policy in Ghana. Int J Health Serv 1980; 10: 479–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jafei BP, Katyar VK. Problem of drug utilization. East Pharm 1985; 28: 25–30Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    The Indian Drug Manufacturing Association (IDMA). A report on Indian drug industry — 1980–2000 AD. Bombay: IDMA, 1979: 19–62Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    WHO. The use of essential drugs. Fourth report of the WHO Expert Committee. WHO Tech Rep Ser 1990; 796: 7–56Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Antimicrobial resistance: a WHO working group. Bull World Health Organ 1983; 61: 383–94Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reserve antibiotics. WHO Drug Inform 1989; 3: 165–6Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kunin CM, Calvin M. Rational use of antibiotics. WHO Drug Info 1990; 1:4–7Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Melrose D. Bitter pills. Oxford: Oxfam, 1982Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Alhadelf L. Toxic effects of water soluble vitamins. Nutr Rev 1984; 42: 33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bamji MS. Laboratory tests for the assessment of vitamin nutritional status. In: Briggs MH, editor. Vitamins in human biology and medicine. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1981: 1–27Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vijayaraghavan K, Brahmam GNV, Nair KM, et al. Evaluation of national anemia prophylaxis programme. Indian J Pediatr 1990; 57: 183–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Longitudinal studies on control and prevention of iron deficiency anaemia in rural Indian population. Annual report. Hyderabad: National Institute of Nutrition, 1987: 100Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wolff N. Professional uncertainty and physician medical decision making in a multiple treatment frame work. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 99–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bhardwaja Dineshkumar
    • 1
  • Thummala C. Raghuram
    • 1
  • Garispati Radhaiah
    • 1
  • Kamala Krishnaswamy
    • 1
  1. 1.Food and Drug Toxicology Research CentreNational Institute of NutritionJamai-OsmanaiIndia

Personalised recommendations