Sources of Information on Medicinal Products Among Physicians - A Survey Conducted Among Primary Care Physicians in Poland

Drug information-seeking behaviour among Jordanian physicians: a cross-sectional study

Background: Due to the huge number of drugs available and the rapid growth and change in drug information, healthcare professionals, especially physicians, frequently require reliable, easily accessible, rapid, and accurate reference sources to obtain the necessary drug information. Several sources of information are available for physicians to use and select from; however, the information-seeking behaviour of healthcare providers is varied, and this process can be challenging. Objectives: In this study, Jordanian physicians were approached to evaluate the drug information they require, the sources of information they use, the perceived credibility of the sources, and the challenges they face when searching for the most accurate and current information about drugs. Methods: This is an observational, cross-sectional study. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to practising physicians in Jordan using a convenience sampling method (purposive sampling followed by snowball sampling) regardless of their speciality, age, gender, seniority, or place of employment. Results: Three hundred and eighty physicians participated in the study. Most participants responded that they performed drug information searches on a weekly (155, 40.8%) or a daily basis (150, 39.5%). The drug-related information that physicians most frequently searched for concerned dosage regimens and adverse drug events. The majority of surveyed doctors (97.9%) reported using online websites to acquire drug information; UpToDate®, Medscape and Drugs.com were the most frequently used online databases, although many participants did not consider online sources to be the most reliable source. The most prevalent and recurrent challenges encountered concerned an inability to access subscription-only journals and websites (56.6%), difficulty identifying trusted and credible sources (41.8%) and the enormous number of available sources (35.3%). However, these challenges were less of a problem for physicians who currently work or have previously worked in academia (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that Jordanian physicians frequently use online websites to look for drug information and all doctors face challenges throughout this process particularly those with no experience in academia. This suggests that being in academia makes the process of information-seeking easier which highlights the need for academics to transfer their knowledge and experience to their non-academic colleagues and the upcoming generations of physicians.

One year of digital health applications (DiGA) in Germany - Rheumatologists' perspectives

Background

Based on given legislation the German approach to digital health applications (DiGA) allows reimbursed prescription of approved therapeutic software products since October 2020. For the first time, we evaluated DiGA-related acceptance, usage, and level of knowledge among members of the German Society for Rheumatology (DGRh) 1 year after its legal implementation.

Materials and methods

An anonymous cross-sectional online survey, initially designed by the health innovation hub (think tank and sparring partner of the German Federal Ministry of Health) and the German Pain Society was adapted to the field of rheumatology. The survey was promoted by DGRh newsletters and Twitter-posts. Ethical approval was obtained.

Results

In total, 75 valid response-sets. 80% reported to care ≥ 70% of their working time for patients with rheumatic diseases. Most were working in outpatient clinics/offices (54%) and older than 40 years (84%). Gender distribution was balanced (50%). 70% knew the possibility to prescribe DiGA. Most were informed of this for the first time via trade press (63%), and only 8% via the scientific/professional society. 46% expect information on DiGA from the scientific societies/medical chambers (35%) but rarely from the manufacturer (10%) and the responsible ministry (4%). Respondents would like to be informed about DiGA via continuing education events (face-to-face 76%, online 84%), trade press (86%), and manufacturers' test-accounts (64%). Only 7% have already prescribed a DiGA, 46% planned to do so, and 47% did not intend DiGA prescriptions. Relevant aspects for prescription are provided. 86% believe that using DiGA/medical apps would at least partially be feasible and understandable to their patients. 83% thought that data collected by the patients using DiGA or other digital solutions could at least partially influence health care positively. 51% appreciated to get DiGA data directly into their patient documentation system/electronic health record (EHR) and 29% into patient-owned EHR.

Conclusion

Digital health applications awareness was high whereas prescription rate was low. Mostly, physician-desired aspects for DiGA prescriptions were proven efficacy and efficiency for physicians and patients, risk of adverse effects and health care costs were less important. Evaluation of patients' barriers and needs is warranted. Our results might contribute to the implementation and dissemination of DiGA.