Preferences for Accessing Medical Information in the Digital Age: Health Care Professional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals (HCPs) routinely have questions concerning the medications they are recommending. There are numerous resources available; however, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this survey was to gain knowledge of the preferred methods and sources HCPs use to obtain information concerning medications. METHODS: A total of 511 HCPs (202 physicians, 105 pharmacists, 100 advance practice nurses, 53 registered nurses, and 51 physician assistants) were surveyed through a third-party market research firm. All participants were practicing in the United States. Individuals working for a pharmaceutical company were excluded. The survey collected demographics, frequency of searching medical information, types of questions searched, sources of medical information, and rationale for preferred and nonpreferred sources of medical information. Use of medical information resources were rated on a 5-point ordinal scale. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 511 respondents, 88.5% (452/511) searched for medical information either daily or several times per week. The most common questions involved dosing and administration, drug-drug interactions, adverse events and safety, clinical practice guidelines, and disease state information. The main rationale for using specific medical websites or apps and general online search engines frequently or very frequently was ease of use (medical websites or apps: 269/356, 75.6%; general online search engines: 248/284, 87.3%). Accuracy was the main rationale for frequent or very frequent use of medical literature search databases (163/245, 66.5%), prescribing labels or information (122/213, 57.3%), and professional literature (120/195, 61.5%). The main reason for rarely or never using specific medical websites or apps and medical literature search databases was unfamiliarity (medical websites or apps: 16/48, 33%; medical literature search databases: 35/78, 45%); for general online search engines, inaccuracy (34/54, 63%); and for prescribing labels or information and professional literature, excessive time (prescribing labels or information : 54/102, 52.9%; professional literature: 66/106, 62.3%). The pharmaceutical company was sometimes used as a resource for medical information. When the medical information department was used, the call center and the website were considered thorough and complete (call center: 14/25, 56%; website: 33/55, 60%). However, the rationale for not using the call center was the time required (199/346, 57.5%) and the website being unfamiliar (129/267, 48.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The driving forces in the selection of resources are accuracy and ease of use. There is an opportunity to increase awareness of all the appropriate resources for HCPs which may aid in their daily clinical decisions. Specifically, pharmaceutical company medical information departments can help fulfill this need by addressing two major challenges with use of the pharmaceutical company: lack of awareness of medical information services and the speed at which responses are disseminated. Overall, there is lack of understanding or appreciation of the range of pathways to obtain published information and knowledge from pharmaceutical company medical information services. Among the many challenges resource champions will face are the ability to effectively make resources and their platforms accessible, known, and useful to the scientific community.

Opinions and Trends of Healthcare Providers Concerning Scientific/Standard Response Documents.

BACKGROUND: One of the main roles of the medical information (MI) department within a pharmaceutical company is to develop scientific/standard response documents (SRDs) to provide comprehensive medical information to healthcare providers (HCPs). This study seeks to gain HCP feedback on the various elements in the format of an SRD. METHODS: This study surveyed 400 healthcare providers (200 physicians, 100 pharmacists, and 100 nurse practitioners/advanced practice nurses and physician assistants) regarding their opinions and preferences on the structure, content, layout, and delivery options of SRDs. The survey also included questions assessing where HCPs access their medical information, their trust in the medical information they receive from MI Departments, and alternative methods for receiving medical information. RESULTS: HCPs often self-search for medical information via an electronic device, which allows for SRDs to serve as a key resource. HCPs, who had prior contact with a pharmaceutical company's MI department, have a high degree of trust in the SRDs that they had received. However, perception of bias can have an impact on their level of trust. HCPs prefer all relevant data such as real-world evidence, adverse drug reactions, and clinical trial data, while abstracts and data on file may not be needed, but the overall length should only be three to five pages. HCPs find value in various SRD formatting characteristics, such as charts, tables, and infographics. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, HCPs seek medical information resources, such as SRDs, to aid in the delivery of personalized patient care. HCPs prefer SRDs to be concise, but include comprehensive, unbiased medical information. Through HCP feedback, MI Departments of pharmaceutical companies can continue to develop and update their SRDs to increase uptake and potentially impact clinical practice.