Page 69 - ITPS-8-3

INNOSC Theranostics and
Pharmacological Sciences Knowledge, perception, and practices of ecopharmacovigilance

22 ± 0.96 years. Among the 300 respondents, females the total participants, 160 (53.3%) were 3 -year students,
rd
comprised a higher proportion (61.3%) compared to while 140 (46.7%) were 4 -year students.
th
males (38.7%). In addition, one-third of the respondents Table 2 shows that nearly 63.7% of respondents
(33%) had a first-degree relative in the healthcare field. Of
“strongly agreed” and 35.3% “agreed” that the creation
and implementation of green manufacturing processes
Table 1. Socio‑demographic characteristics and knowledge for pharmaceuticals are essential. In addition, 60.7% of
of EPV among study subjects (n=300) respondents “strongly agreed” and 35.3% “agreed” that the
Participant attribute Responses Number potential environmental impacts of a new medicine should
(%) be evaluated before it receives authorization. Similarly,
Age (mean±SD) - 22±0.96 54.3% of respondents “strongly agreed” and 44.3%
Gender - “agreed” that pharmaceutical residues in the environment
Male 116 (38.7) could have cause adverse effects on the ecosystem, wildlife
Female 184 (61.3) species, even human health. Likewise, nearly 45.3% of
Year of study - respondents “strongly agreed” and 53.3% “agreed” that
Third year 160 (53.3) they considered it their professional duty to implement
Fourth year 140 (46.7) EPV.
Having any 1 degree relatives in the Yes 99 (33)
st
healthcare field No 201 (67) Table 3 shows that 73.7% of respondents often checked
Do you have any knowledge about safe drug Yes 96 (32) the expiry date of their medications and 73.3% reported
disposal? No 204 (68) taking their medications according to the advice of a
Do you have any idea about EPV? Yes 81 (27) doctor or pharmacist.
No 219 (73)
Table 4 describes that 20% of private medical students
Numerous Asian Gyps (bird) species were Yes 204 (68) were knowledgeable about safe drug disposal, whereas
eradicated due to environmental animal No 96 (32) only 12% of government medical students had this
diclofenac residue
OCP residues in the water environment Yes 180 (60) knowledge. The difference was statistically significant
cause sterility in frogs and feminization of No 120 (40) (p≤0.05). The knowledge and perception scores were
male fish statistically significant (p≤0.05) for both government and
Abbreviations: EPV: Ecopharmacovigilance; SD: Standard deviation; private medical students, except for the topic of increased
OCP: Oral contraceptive pill. microbial resistance to antibiotics due to environmental

Table 2. Perception of EPV among medical students (n=300)
Survey questions Responses, number (%)
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Neutral
1. Drugs may be discharged into drainage systems and persist in the 98 (31.3) 128 (42.7) 21 (7) 54 (18) 4 (1.3)
environment.
2. Drug compounds in the environment may have harmful consequences on 163 (54.3) 133 (44.3) 2 (0.7) 2 (0.7) 0
ecosystems, wildlife species, and human health.
3. EPV is required for managing drug residues and associated adverse effects 129 (43) 167 (55.7) 3 (1) 1 (0.3) 0
as part of pharmacovigilance to protect the environment.
4. I have an intense desire in EPV as a future physician. 112 (37.3) 165 (55) 20 (6.7) 3 (1) 0
5. Individuals should be educated on the potential environmental harm 189 (63) 100 (33.3) 7 (2.3) 1 (0.3) 3 (1)
caused by pharmaceutical residues, as well as the proper consumption,
disposal, and handling of medications.
6. I t is essential to plan and implement environmentally friendly techniques 191 (63.7) 106 (35.3) 2 (0.7) 1 (0.3) 0
pharmaceutical manufacturing processes.
7. It is necessary to assess the potential environmental risks before approval 182 (60.7) 110 (36.6) 4 (1.3) 1 (0.3) 3 (1)
of a new drug.
8. I consider it my professional duty to implement EPV. 136 (45.3) 160 (53.3) 2 (0.7) 2 (0.7) 0
9. If I received proper training, I would be blessed to participate in EPV 139 (46.3) 140 (46.6) 9 (3) 3 (1) 9 (3)
practices in the coming years.
Abbreviation: EPV: Ecopharmacovigilance.

Volume 8 Issue 3 (2025) 63 doi: 10.36922/itps.7678