Skip to main content
Log in

Identification and physicians’ views of their commonly-used drug information sources in Singapore

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim To examine physicians’ use and views of various sources for general drug information and to determine the kind of drug-related questions they receive. Method An online survey of general practitioners who were Singapore Medical Association members was conducted. The survey consisted of questions about the physicians’ demographics, the drug information source they used most often, their opinions on the information from that source, and the types of drug-related questions they received from patients. Results Among the 236 physicians who responded to the survey, 58.1% used reference texts most frequently; of these respondents, 80.3% used the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties. Only 4.2% most often go to pharmacists for drug information. Of the 75 (31.8%) respondents who chose online sources, about half used Google while the remainder used specific websites. Most respondents rated drug information from reference texts as somewhat comprehensive (71.5%) and usually reliable (81.8%). The choice of drug information sources was associated with physicians’ age, place of practice, access to the Internet, and clinical experience (P < 0.05). The types of drug-related questions that physicians most frequently received were with regards to adverse drug reactions (76.3%), drug costs (36.4%), and drug use during pregnancy or lactation (34.3%). Conclusion Most physicians in Singapore search for general drug information using reference texts and consider them to be comprehensive and reliable. Questions pertaining to adverse drug reactions were the drug-related questions physicians most frequently receive. It is important for physicians to have appropriate drug information references and learn methods with which to verify the credibility of drug information obtained from the Internet. Pharmacists can also work to improve their role as providers of drug information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Tajir GK, Kelly WN. Epidemiology, comparative methods of detection, and preventability of adverse drug events. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39:1169–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press; 1999. ISBN:0309068371.

  3. Phillips DP, Christenfeld N, Glynn LM. Increase in US medication-error deaths between 1983 and 1993. Lancet. 1998;351:643–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. von Laue NC, Schwappach DL, Koeck CM. The epidemiology of preventable adverse drug events: a review of the literature. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2003;115:407–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Singapore Medical Council annual report 2008. Singapore: Singapore Medical Council, 2008. http://www.smc.gov.sg/html/MungoBlobs/515/148/SMC%20Annual%20Report%202008%20(Final%20Printed%20Version).pdf. (Accessed December 2010).

  6. Vidal L, Shavit M, Fraser A, Paul M, Leibovici L. Systematic comparison of four sources of drug information regarding adjustment of dose for renal function. BMJ. 2005;331:263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abarca J, Malone DC, Armstrong EP, et al. Concordance of severity ratings provided in four drug interaction compendia. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2004;44:136–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vitry AI. Comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63:709–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fulda TR, Valuck RJ, Zanden JV. Disagreement among drug compendia on inclusion and ratings of drug–drug interactions. Curr Ther Res. 2000;61:540–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hatfield CL, May SK, Markoff JS. Quality of consumer drug information provided by four web sites. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999;56:2308–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Franke L, Avery AJ, Groom L, Horsfield P. Is there a role for computerized decision support for drug dosing in general practice? A questionnaire survey. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2000;25:373–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hull FM, Marshall T. Sources of information about new drugs and attitudes towards drug prescribing: an international study of differences between primary care physicians. Fam Pract. 1987;4:123–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McGettigan P, Golden J, Fryer J, Chan R, Feely J. Prescribers prefer people: the sources of information used by doctors for prescribing suggest that the medium is more important than the message. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;51:184–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Peay MY, Peay ER. Differences among practitioners in patterns of preference for information sources in the adoption of new drugs. Soc Sci Med. 1984;18:1019–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Peay MY, Peay ER. Patterns of preference for information sources in the adoption of new drugs by specialists. Soc Sci Med. 1990;31:467–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Layton MR, Sritanyarat W, Chadbunchachai S, Wertheimer AI. Sources of information for new drugs among physicians in Thailand. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29:619–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ponampalam R, Anantharaman V. The need for drug and poison information—the Singapore physicians’ perspective. Singapore Med J. 2003;44:231–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bennett NL, Casebeer LL, Kristofco R, Collins BC. Family physicians’ information seeking behaviors: a survey comparison with other specialties. BioMed Central. 2005;5:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wong PSJ, Ko Y, Sklar GE. A survey of pharmacists in Singapore to identify and evaluate commonly-used drug information sources. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:347–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Monthly Index of Medical Specialties (MIMS) Singapore. http://www.mims.com.sg. (Accessed 2011 Feb 12).

  21. Ho CH, Ko Y, Tan ML. Patient needs and sources of drug information in Singapore: is the internet replacing former sources? Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:732–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. URAC’s Health Web Site and Health Content Vendor Accreditation Programs. http://www.urac.org/programs/prog_accred_HWS_po.aspx. (Accessed 2010 Dec 12).

  23. HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) for medical and health Web sites.www.hon.ch/HONcode. (Accessed 2010 Dec 12).

  24. List of registered medical practitioners for 2007. Supplement to the Republic of Singapore Government Gazette. Singapore National Printers Corporation Ltd (SNP), 2007.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the physicians who responded to the survey and the Singapore Medical Association for distributing the survey.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Ko.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lua, HL., Sklar, G. & Ko, Y. Identification and physicians’ views of their commonly-used drug information sources in Singapore. Int J Clin Pharm 33, 772–778 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-011-9533-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-011-9533-y

Keywords

Navigation