IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0238538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online availability of fish antibiotics and documented intent for self-medication

Author

Listed:
  • Weiwei Zhang
  • Austin Williams
  • Nicole Griffith
  • Jessica Gaskins
  • P Brandon Bookstaver

Abstract

Self-medication and antibiotic utilization without healthcare oversight may lead to delayed appropriate treatment, transmission of communicable infections, untoward adverse events, and contribute to antimicrobial resistance. Previous data suggest people obtain over-the-counter (OTC) animal antibiotics for their personal use. This study examined the availability of OTC fish antibiotics online and the documented intent for self-medication. The authors conducted a web-based cross-sectional study using Google search engine to identify vendor websites selling fish antibiotics in the United States. Vendor websites were included if product information, consumer reviews, and comments were publicly available. Nine fish antibiotics were chosen due to their possibility of having consequences to human misuse. The cost and availability of fish antibiotics was recorded. The proportion of reviews and comments related to human consumption was calculated. Consumer review traffic based on “likes” and “dislikes” received was compared between human- and non-human consumption-related reviews. Selected fish antibiotics were purchased and evaluated for physical appearance and compared to FDA-approved available equivalents. We found 24 website vendors with online ordering available for OTC fish antibiotics. Cost varied significantly by antibiotic and quantity ranging from USD $8.99 to $119.99. There were 2,288 reviews documented for the 9 selected antibiotics being sold. Among consumer reviews, 2.4% were potentially associated with human consumption. Human consumption-related reviews constituted 30.2% of all “likes” received and 37.5% of all “dislikes” received. Human consumption-related reviews received an average of 9.2 likes compared to 0.52 likes for non-human consumption-related reviews. The 8 fish antibiotics purchased were consistent with FDA-approved equivalents in physical appearance. Although infrequent, antibiotics intended for fish use are being purchased online without a prescription for self-medication to circumvent professional medical care. Reviews related to human consumption generate significant online traffic compared to reviews unrelated to human consumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiwei Zhang & Austin Williams & Nicole Griffith & Jessica Gaskins & P Brandon Bookstaver, 2020. "Online availability of fish antibiotics and documented intent for self-medication," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-12, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0238538
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238538
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238538&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0238538?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. King, Robert Allen & Racherla, Pradeep & Bush, Victoria D., 2014. "What We Know and Don't Know About Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 167-183.
    2. Floyd, Kristopher & Freling, Ryan & Alhoqail, Saad & Cho, Hyun Young & Freling, Traci, 2014. "How Online Product Reviews Affect Retail Sales: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 217-232.
    3. Purnawirawan, Nathalia & Eisend, Martin & De Pelsmacker, Patrick & Dens, Nathalie, 2015. "A Meta-analytic Investigation of the Role of Valence in Online Reviews," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 17-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marchand, André & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten & Wiertz, Caroline, 2017. "Not all digital word of mouth is created equal: Understanding the respective impact of consumer reviews and microblogs on new product success," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 336-354.
    2. Tamaddoni, Ali & Seenivasan, Satheesh & Pallant, Jason I. & Skiera, Bernd, 2023. "Investigating the effect of status changes in review platforms," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 189-209.
    3. Chan, Haksin & Yang, Morgan X. & Zeng, Kevin J., 2022. "Bolstering ratings and reviews systems on multi-sided platforms: A co-creation perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 208-217.
    4. Yani Wang & Jun Wang & Tang Yao, 2019. "What makes a helpful online review? A meta-analysis of review characteristics," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 257-284, June.
    5. Dominik Gutt & Jürgen Neumann & Steffen Zimmermann & Dennis Kundisch & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Design of Review Systems - A Strategic Instrument to shape Online Review Behavior and Economic Outcomes," Working Papers Dissertations 42, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    6. Raoofpanah, Iman & Zamudio, César & Groening, Christopher, 2023. "Review reader segmentation based on the heterogeneous impacts of review and reviewer attributes on review helpfulness: A study involving ZIP code data," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    7. Elvira Ismagilova & Emma L. Slade & Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi, 2020. "The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth Communications on Intention to Buy: A Meta-Analysis," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 1203-1226, October.
    8. Agnieszka Zablocki & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Michael J. Houston, 2019. "How valence, volume and variance of online reviews influence brand attitudes," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(1), pages 61-77, June.
    9. Nguyen, Hang T. & Chaudhuri, Malika, 2019. "Making new products go viral and succeed," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 39-62.
    10. Ana Babić Rosario & Kristine Valck & Francesca Sotgiu, 2020. "Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 422-448, May.
    11. Ioana Marinescu & Nadav Klein & Andrew Chamberlain & Morgan Smart, 2018. "Incentives Can Reduce Bias in Online Reviews," NBER Working Papers 24372, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Marek Gaworski & Piotr F. Borowski & Łukasz Kozioł, 2022. "Supporting Decision-Making in the Technical Equipment Selection Process by the Method of Contradictory Evaluations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-17, June.
    13. Eslami, Seyed Pouyan & Ghasemaghaei, Maryam, 2018. "Effects of online review positiveness and review score inconsistency on sales: A comparison by product involvement," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 74-80.
    14. Hongpeng Wang & Rong Du & Jin Li & Weiguo Fan, 2020. "Subdivided or aggregated online review systems: Which is better for online takeaway vendors?," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 915-944, December.
    15. Michelle D. Steward & James A. Narus & Michelle L. Roehm, 2018. "An exploratory study of business-to-business online customer reviews: external online professional communities and internal vendor scorecards," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 173-189, March.
    16. Ismagilova, Elvira & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Slade, Emma, 2020. "Perceived helpfulness of eWOM: Emotions, fairness and rationality," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    17. Kim, Jong Min & Jun, Mina & Kim, Chung K., 2018. "The Effects of Culture on Consumers' Consumption and Generation of Online Reviews," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 134-150.
    18. Fink, Lior & Rosenfeld, Liron & Ravid, Gilad, 2018. "Longer online reviews are not necessarily better," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 30-37.
    19. Mariani, Marcello M. & Borghi, Matteo & Laker, Benjamin, 2023. "Do submission devices influence online review ratings differently across different types of platforms? A big data analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    20. Verma, Deepak & Prakash Dewani, Prem & Behl, Abhishek & Pereira, Vijay & Dwivedi, Yogesh & Del Giudice, Manilo, 2023. "A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of eWOM credibility: Investigation of moderating role of culture and platform type," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0238538. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.