Abstract: Profiling Consumers of Substandard and Falsified Medications Purchased on Social Media and E-Retail Platforms: A 17-Country Survey

◆ Anastasia Kononova, Michigan State University
◆ Saleem Alhabash, Michigan State University
◆ Patricia Huddleston, Michigan State University
◆ Moldir Moldagaliyeva, Michigan State University
◆ Heijin Lee, Michigan State University

Buying medications from unverified online sources poses serious global public health risks. Individuals can access medications without a prescription via social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat), e-commerce sites, and online pharmacies, with the extreme majority of these venues operating illegally and illicitly selling substandard and falsified drugs (SFD) (Alhabash et al., 2022; Brady & Baney, 2022; Moureaud et al., 2021). Access to SFD without proper regulations and guidelines may lead to serious illness and even death. Amid the persistent effects of the opioid crisis in the U.S. (Stobbe, 2021), SFD risks are elevated, with over 250,000 children's annual deaths due to using fake malaria and pneumonia medications (Sample, 2019).

Law enforcement and brand protection teams focus on reactive strategies of tracking supply chain legitimacy and seizure of SFDs. Yet, amid the mushrooming prevalence of SFD through online sources, there is a need for proactive, consumer-centric strategies that capitalize on understanding consumer attributes, motivations, and behaviors regarding SFD purchases. This study reports the results of a 17-country survey (N=13,060) focusing on consumers who had previously bought counterfeit medications. Findings inform public awareness communication campaigns regarding the risks of buying SFD online to consumer health and well-being, appealing specifically to the SFD buyers segment that, our study shows, are more likely to hold positive attitudes toward fakes and heavily use digital platforms to buy them.

One in 20 survey respondents (n = 644, 52% males, Mage=39, 71% employed, 80% married) bought SFD last year; 84% did so knowingly. Indian participants were highest in SFD purchase, while Argentinian and South Korean participants ranked the lowest (2% each).

SFD buyers reported higher rates of buying counterfeit products via social media (70%) and e-retail websites (59%) than SFD non-buyers, of whom only 39% bought counterfeits through these platforms. Meta-affiliated platforms of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp were the top sources of buying counterfeits.

SFD buyers reported higher counterfeit purchase intentions (M=4.29) than the general survey sample (M=2.73). Indian SFD buyers indicated the highest intention (M=5.97), followed by the U.S. (M=5.63) and Australian (M=5.50) samples. South Korean and Peruvian participants scored the lowest (M=3.90, M=3.15)(7-point scale, 1=low, 7=high).

SFD buyers expressed higher counterfeit purchase motivations than SFD non-buyers, with economic motive as the primary driver of counterfeit purchase (M=4.69buyers, M=3.57non-buyers), followed by hedonic (M=4.31buyers, M=2.85non-buyers), social-adjustive (M=4.30buyers, M=2.83non-buyers), and value-expressive (M=4.23buyers, M=2.70non-buyers) motives. SFD buyers expressed significantly more positive affective (M=4.40buyers, M=2.75non-buyers) and cognitive (M=4.40buyers, M=3.10non-buyers) attitudes toward buying counterfeits than non-buyers. SFD buyers reported higher injunctive personal norms (M=4.68) than injunctive societal norms (M=4.55). SFD buyers reported greater response efficacy on social media (M=5.30buyers, M=4.87non-buyers) and were likelier to buy counterfeit products in all categories from and for close friends and family.

Findings point to alarmingly heightened risks from purchasing any type of counterfeit in the segment of SFD buyers who are highly motivated to purchase fakes, versed in the e-retail space, and use social connections to acquire/distribute illicit products. Implications for health communication interventions are discussed using planned behavior and protection motivation theories.