RESEARCH ARTICLE
A Comprehensive Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practicalities Related to Doping Agents use among Jordanians
Mohanad Odeh1
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2022Volume: 18
E-location ID: e174501792202280
Publisher ID: e174501792202280
DOI: 10.2174/17450179-v18-e2202280
Article History:
Received Date: 3/7/2021Revision Received Date: 18/11/2021
Acceptance Date: 14/12/2021
Electronic publication date: 25/03/2022
Collection year: 2022
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Background:
People perform sports for better health and wellbeing. However, the use of doping agents is emerging among young adults. This study investigated aspects related to doping agents.
Methods:
A reliable self-administered questionnaire (Cronbach’s alpha =0.72, Pearson's r = 0.89) was used to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practicalities related to the use of doping agents. Results for pharmacists as health care providers (HCP, n=550) were compared with non-healthcare providers (Non-HCP, n=319).
Results:
Among pharmacists, 82.9% knew the definition of doping agents vs. 72.4% of non-HCP (P<0.001). However, 36.7% of pharmacists vs. 39.6% of non-HCP incorrectly classified doping agents (P=0.02). The majority of responders (89.8%) supported having an anti-doping authority, yet, only 15% were aware of the anti-doping organizations. The majority of responders (83%) did not receive an official education related to doping agents. Enhancing physical performance was perceived as a leading driver (82.1%) to use doping agents. More than 90% of responders supported awareness in the community. The perceived best tool for awareness was social media and TV sites, as suggested by pharmacists (95.0%) and non-HCP (92.1%, P=0.312). A total of 6.1% had ever used doping agents (3.6% pharmacist vs. 9.8% non-HCP, P<0.001). Almost half of the users utilized a diet or medication to counteract the side effects of doping agents. Within pharmacists, males received more requests to provide doping agents (41.9%) compared with females (23.8%, P<0.001).
Conclusion:
It is crucial to enhance professional and legal knowledge and public awareness about doping agents, not only for non-HCP but also for HCPs. Applying more restrictions on doping agents is strongly recommended.
