Sources of medicine information and their reliability evaluated by medicine users
- 404 Downloads
To study the medicine users’ sources of medicine information and the perceived reliability of these sources in different age groups.
A computer-aided telephone interview (CATI) to Finnish consumers (n = 1,004). Those respondents (n = 714) who reported using any prescription or self-medication medicines more than once a month were included in the study.
The respondents were interviewed about their use of sources of medicine information during the previous 6 months. The reliability of sources in different age groups was estimated using a 4-point scale: very reliable, somewhat reliable, somewhat unreliable and very unreliable. The respondents also had the option of being unable to make an appraisal.
Main outcome measure
A proportion of respondents reporting using the source, number of mentioned sources and their reliability evaluated by respondents.
About half of the respondents in each age group mentioned two to four sources. The most common sources of information were Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) (74%), doctors (68%) and pharmacists (60%). Next came television (40%), newspapers and magazines (40%), drug advertisements (32%), nurses (28%), drug information leaflets (27%), relatives and friends (24%), medicine guides and books (22%) and the Internet (20%). There was a significant difference between age groups in reporting the Internet as a source of medicine information (15–34-year-old respondents reported the greatest Internet use). The three most reliable sources in every age group were reported to be PILs, doctors and pharmacists. Nurses, drug regulatory authorities, drug information leaflets and medicine guides and books were considered next most reliable. Relatives and friends, television, newspapers and magazines were considered the least reliable. The respondents were most uncertain about the reliability of the Internet, patient organisations and telephone services. There was a significant difference between age groups in evaluating the reliability of telephone services (15–34-year-olds found them more reliable).
Medicine users reported receiving medicine information from many sources. The most commonly used sources were perceived as the most reliable, but their reliability did not seem to depend on age. The counsellors should take into account that patients have many sources of medicine information, with varying validity.
KeywordsAge groups Consumers Drug Information Finland Health professionals Internet Medicines Patients Reliability Trust
The author most wishes to thank Anna Karjalainen, M.A., Dr. Anna Koski-Pirilä and Vesa Kiviniemi, Ph.Lic. for their valuable and helpful comments on this article.
Funding. This study was funded by the National Agency for Medicines in Finland.
Conflicts of interest. The Author is working as a Senior Researcher in the National Agency for Medicines, but there are no conflicts of interest.
- 2.Närhi U. Drug information for consumers and patients—a review of the research. Publications of National Agency for Medicines 1/2006, Helsinki, ISBN number 952-5099-91-1. http://www.nam.fi/english/whats_new/news/drug_information.html (6 Feb. 2007).
- 5.Vainio K, Airaksinen M, Väisänen T, Enlund H. Assessing the importance of community pharmacists as providers of drug information. J Appl Ther Res 2004;5:24–9.Google Scholar
- 7.Hicks KE, Wogalter MS, Vigilante WJ. Placement of benefits and risks in prescription drug manufacturers’ websites and information source expectations. Drug Inf J 2005;39:267–78.Google Scholar
- 8.Internet Usage in Europe. Internet World Stats Usage and Population Statistics. Internet user statistics and population for 52 European countries and regions, 11 Jan. 2007 http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm (6 Feb. 2007).Google Scholar
- 10.Fukuyama F. Trust. The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Simon & Schuster, Free press paperbacks; 1996.Google Scholar
- 12.Trachtenberg F, Dugan E. How patients’ trust relates to their involvement in medical care. J Fam Pract 2005;54(4) http://www.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?AID=1918 (6 Feb. 2007).Google Scholar
- 16.Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2618–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Airaksinen M. Customer feedback as a tool for improving pharmacy services in Finland [Dissertation]. Kuopio University Publications A. Pharmaceutical Sciences 25, Kuopio University Printing Office, Kuopio, 1996.Google Scholar
- 18.Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Medicines Act and Decree 395/1987.Google Scholar
- 19.National Agency for Medicines. Medicinal product information, NamWeb search. http://namweb.nam.fi/namweb/do/haku/view?locale=en (6 Feb. 2007).Google Scholar
- 21.Raynor DK, Knapp O, Moody A, Young R. Patient information leaflets—impact of European regulations on safe and effective use of medicines. Pharm J 2005;275:609–11.Google Scholar
- 25.Johnson TJ, Kaye BK. Cruising is believing? Comparing Internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. J&MC Quaterly 1998;75:325–40.Google Scholar
- 28.Närhi U. Drug information from the drug regulatory authorities to the general public. Pharm Policy Law 2005, 2006;8:31–6.Google Scholar