RESUMO
BACKGROUND: With the advancement of technology, more countries are now adopting the use of electronic product information (ePI), which refer to an electronic version of physical product inserts in a semistructured format optimized for electronic manipulation. The successful implementation of ePI has led to advantages and convenience to patients, health care professionals, and pharmaceutical companies in many regions and countries. In the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), there is currently no citywide implementation of ePI. The SAR exhibits conditions that would favor the implementation of an ePI system, as well as existing barriers hindering its implementation. However, no study has been performed to examine the specific situation in Hong Kong. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to explore working pharmacists' overall perception of ePI and to identify potential challenges to the implementation of an ePI system in Hong Kong. METHODS: This mixed-method study involved a structured survey and interview with practicing pharmacists in Hong Kong. Pharmacists were eligible if they were licensed to practice in Hong Kong, and currently working locally in any pharmacy-related sectors and institutions. Respondents completed a survey to indicate their level of agreement with statements regarding the potential advantages of ePI over paper PI. A structured interview was conducted to gather respondents' perceived advantages of ePI over paper PI in different aspects, such as professionalism, usability, presentation, and environment, as well as challenges of citywide ePI implementation in Hong Kong. Thematic analysis was adopted to analyze the qualitative data. Grounded theory was used to generate themes and identify specific outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 16 pharmacists were recruited, comprising 4 community pharmacists, 5 hospital pharmacists, and 7 industrial pharmacists. All of them used electronic platforms at least once per month on average. Respondents identified many flaws in physical package inserts that can potentially be mitigated using ePI. The speed with which drug information can be retrieved and the degree to which the drug information can be readily updated and disseminated were considered the greatest strengths of ePI. The clarity with which ePI present drug information to patients was considered as the weakest aspect of ePI. Many respondents highlighted concerns about the security risks and high cost associated with system maintenance and that certain subpopulations may not be sufficiently computer literate to navigate the ePI system. Respondents also voiced many concerns about the implementation and maintenance of a local ePI system. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that an ePI system is generally supported by pharmacists but concerns about implementation process and maintenance of the system has been raised. The perceived benefits of ePI gathered from this study, as well as collective evidence from other countries with mature ePI systems, confirm that more efforts should be made to promote optimized development and implementation of an ePI system in Hong Kong.
