Research story · published
Self-Medication Among Medical and Non-Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study at Superior University
Nearly two in three students reported recent self-medication. Greater knowledge among medical students did not correspond to lower reported use.
01
Why this matters
Taking medicine without professional consultation can lead to incorrect dosing, delayed diagnosis, adverse effects, and avoidable antibiotic use. This study highlights a knowledge-behavior gap: medical students understood more about self-medication and its risks, but they did not report doing it less often.
02
Study snapshot
- Design
- Cross-sectional survey using convenience sampling
- Sample
- 699
- Population
- 466 medical and 233 non-medical full-time undergraduate students; mean age 21.38 years
- Setting
- Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan
- Measures
- Structured self-administered questionnaire covering knowledge, six-month practice, perceptions, reasons, medicine types, sources, and side effects
- Analysis
- Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, and unadjusted chi-square tests in SPSS 26
454 of 699 students reported self-medication during the previous six months.
03
Results, without the jargon
Self-medication was common in both academic groups. Medical students were more familiar with the practice and aware of its risks, yet their reported self-medication frequency was not detectably different from non-medical students. Painkillers were the most common medicines, while antibiotics represented one quarter of reported medicine responses. Pharmacies were the dominant supply route. Many students viewed self-medication as quick and effective despite concerns about incorrect dosing and delayed diagnosis.
Recent self-medication
64.9% reported use without consultation in the previous six months.
Source: PDF Table 5, pages 5 and 9Familiarity with the term
Medical versus non-medical students, p < .001.
Source: PDF Table 2, page 5Risk awareness
Medical versus non-medical students, p < .001.
Source: PDF Table 2, page 5Analgesics
211 of 415 valid medicine responses.
Source: PDF Table 3, pages 6 to 7Antibiotics
107 of 415 valid medicine responses.
Source: PDF Table 3, pages 6 to 7Pharmacy source
The dominant reported route of access; source differed by discipline, p = .005.
Source: PDF Tables 4 and 5, pages 7 to 9Reported side effects
No clear educational-background association, p = .470.
Source: PDF Table 5, pages 8 to 9Practice by discipline
No statistically detectable association. This does not prove equivalence.
Source: PDF Table 5, page 904
What this could mean
Education should move beyond definitions toward safer decisions, alternatives, and clear triggers for professional care. Universities could provide low-friction consultation pathways. Pharmacist counselling and prescription enforcement matter, particularly for antibiotics. Interventions should address convenience and overconfidence, not knowledge alone.
05
Read this with the limitations
The cross-sectional design cannot establish cause. Convenience sampling creates selection bias. A single-institution sample limits generalizability. Practice and side effects were self-reported. The questionnaire was pretested but no validation or reliability statistic is reported. Valid denominators vary across items and missing-response handling is unclear. Some questions are labeled N = 699 although they logically concern self-medicators. Comparisons are unadjusted and report few effect sizes or confidence intervals.
06
How I contributed
I led this work from the research question to publication, coordinating the study, guiding and supervising student researchers, strengthening the methodology, interpreting the analysis, and shaping the manuscript. I focused especially on turning the findings into practical messages about medicine safety, antibiotic use, and healthier decision-making among university students.
07
Explore and cite the paper
Asghar T, Fatima Q, Shahid B, Sahar I, Asif H, Saeed R. Self-medication among medical and non-medical students: a cross-sectional study at Superior University. Pakistan Journal of Medical & Cardiological Review. 2025;4(3):513-526. Available from: https://pakjmcr.com/index.php/1/article/view/70
This is a plain-language research summary, not personal medical advice. Interpret findings in the context of the design and limitations.