Assessment of drug information resource preferences of pharmacy students and faculty*

Abstract

A 39-item survey instrument was distributed to faculty and students at Wingate University School of Pharmacy to assess student and faculty drug information (DI) resource use and access preferences. The response rate was 81% (n5289). Faculty and pro- fessional year 2 to 4 students preferred access on laptop or desktop computers (67% and 75%, respectively), followed by smartphones (27% and 22%, respectively). Most faculty and students preferred using Lexicomp Online for drug information (53% and 74%, respectively). Results indicate that DI resources use is similar between students and faculty; laptop or desktop computers are the preferred platforms for accessing drug information.

Headnote

A 39-item survey instrument was distributed to faculty and students at Wingate University School of Pharmacy to assess student and faculty drug information (DI) resource use and access preferences. The response rate was 81% (n5289). Faculty and pro- fessional year 2 to 4 students preferred access on laptop or desktop computers (67% and 75%, respectively), followed by smartphones (27% and 22%, respectively). Most faculty and students preferred using Lexicomp Online for drug information (53% and 74%, respectively). Results indicate that DI resources use is similar between students and faculty; laptop or desktop computers are the preferred platforms for accessing drug information.

INTRODUCTION

Results of ''A Factual Survey on the Nature and Magnitude of Drug Literature,'' performed by the National Library of Medicine, were presented in 1963 and emphasized the immense and complex nature of the biomedical literature [1]. The drug literature, in particular, is dynamic and continues to increase, creating mounting pressure on health care profes- sionals to keep abreast of new information. To facilitate access to the latest drug-related information, drug information resources have been made available on a number of different electronic platforms. Personal digital assistants (PDAs), for example, gained popularity for accessing drug information in the 1990s, when providers of tertiary drug informa- tion databases made it possible for students and practitioners to access drug-related information at the patient's bedside.

Using mobile devices to access information contin- ues to be popular with students, pharmacists, and other health care professionals, as these groups have indicated frequent use of a PDA for finding drug information in recent studies [2-7]. In a survey of 487 pharmacy students at Creighton University and the McWhorter School of Pharmacy, Siracuse and col- leagues found that 58% of respondents used a PDA for drug information at least once per week, while 25% used it at least daily [2]. A similar survey of faculty and residents at the colleges of nursing, medicine, and pharmacy at the University of Illinois at Chicago found that 60% of respondents used a PDA to access drug information [7].

As technology continues to advance, drug informa- tion has become even more accessible and is now available on a wide variety of platforms including laptop computers, smartphones, tablet computers, and e-readers [8]. Electronic textbooks have also grown in popularity, with publishers offering indi- vidual and institutional access to many of their products, including those related to drug and medical information. However, this increase in accessibility presents a challenge to those designing a medical resource collection for students and faculty. Electronic textbooks and drug references offer an advantage with respect to availability and up-to-date content; however, the readability and ease of use is a challenge to some users [9]. Furthermore, the old model of students and practitioners purchasing physical texts independently has been replaced with an expectation that institutional access is available, which requires financial considerations for the program or institu- tion. Fiscal responsibility demands close evaluation of resource utilization and user preferences to ensure that biomedical information resources are purchased on the most beneficial platforms for users with ever- changing habits.

This project was conducted to assess the preferenc- es of faculty and students regarding available drug information resources and evaluate their attitudes toward selected electronic devices used to access drug information.

METHODS

Practice setting

This prospective, self-administered cross-sectional survey was completed at Wingate University School of Pharmacy during the fall semester of 2011. The university is privately owned and has no financial relationship to a major medical center or health care organization. At the time the study was conducted, the school had 320 full-time students and 37 full-time faculty. All students complete a 4-year doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) program that is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), with an introduction to drug information resources during the first professional (P1) year. This course provides a comprehensive overview of the school's resources and exposes students to topics typically found in a didactic drug information course [10]. Pharmacotherapy and disease-state management courses occur during the second (P2) and third (P3) professional years, followed by clinical rotations during the fourth (P4) year, with drug information offered as an elective rotation. All entering students are required to purchase a laptop computer for use during the P1, P2, and P3 years of the curriculum.

Students and faculty have access to a variety of medical information resources including print and electronic textbooks; major electronic drug references (LexicompH Online, MicromedexH, Facts & Compar- isonsH eAnswers); electronic newsletters (Clin-AlertH, Pharmacist's LetterH, The Medical LetterH); electronic secondary databases (PubMed, IPA, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFOSM); and electronic biomedical periodicals. The director of biomedical information, with a specialty in drug information practice, oversees the procurement and culling of the health sciences library collection housed in the School of Pharmacy and provides an annual orientation to available resources.

Survey instrument

The project was deemed by institutional review board (IRB) policy to be exempt from approval. A thirty- nine-item survey instrument was developed to assess student and faculty utilization of, accessibility to, preferences for, and satisfaction with various drug information resources. These resources included print and electronic textbooks, electronic drug information databases, electronic newsletters, electronic secondary databases, electronic biomedical periodicals, and devices used to access drug or medical information (e.g., laptop computer, smartphone). A minimal amount of demographic data were also obtained including highest degree, years of experience, and practice specialty for faculty members. Students were asked for their highest degree as well as their current year in pharmacy school.

The survey instrument was developed using SurveyMonkey online software. Questions assessing satisfaction and preferences were based on a five- point Likert scale ranging from ''strongly agree'' to ''strongly disagree'' or ''most often'' to ''least often.'' Questions measuring frequency of utilization were ranked from ''never'' to ''frequently (several times per day).'' When appropriate, a response of ''not familiar'' was also included to account for instances in which faculty or students were not aware of a particular resource. Respondents were required to answer all questions in each section to advance within the questionnaire but could exit at any time. The survey instrument was pretested by three pharmacists who were familiar with the School of Pharmacy and its resources. A copy of the survey instrument is available in the online only appendix.

Survey administration

All students and faculty at Wingate University School of Pharmacy were eligible for participation. The invitation and link to the survey instrument were distributed via email in November 2011 and remained open for a period of fourteen days. Two follow-up emails and several verbal announcements were made to ensure an adequate response rate. The estimated time to complete the questionnaire was ten to fifteen minutes. All data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. P1 students were excluded from some parts of the analysis, which required application of ad- vanced pharmacotherapy knowledge and expertise with drug information resources.

RESULTS*

Demographics

Responses were obtained for 86% (32/37) of faculty and 80% (257/320) of students. Forty-one percent (13/ 32) of faculty respondents practiced in ambulatory care, 28% (9/32) in acute care, 25% (8/32) in administration, and 6% (2/32) in the basic/pharma- ceutical sciences. Most faculty had greater than 10 years of professional experience (41%, 13/32), while 38% (12/32) had 1 to 5 years and 22% (7/32) had 6 to 10 years. The vast majority of faculty held a PharmD degree (88%, 28/32). Among student respon- dents, 38% (99/257) were in their P1 year, 28% (72/ 257) in their P2 year, 23% (58/257) in their P3 year, and 11% (28/257) in their P4 year. Forty-four percent (113/257) of all student respondents held a bachelor of science degree.

Electronic devices

The most widely owned electronic device by all respondents was a laptop or notebook computer (99%, 281/284), and 77% of all respondents indicated they owned smartphones. More faculty owned a tablet computer (e.g., iPad) or an e-reader (e.g., Kindle), compared with student respondents (37% and 30% versus 14% and 10%, respectively).

When asked which electronic devices they owned and used to access drug information, the number of respondents using a smartphone was similar among faculty and students (63% and 62%, respectively); although, more faculty accessed drug information on a tablet computer compared with students (30% versus 14%, respectively). Table 1 lists the electronic devices that faculty and students owned and used to access drug/medical information.

When asked which devices respondents owned and preferred to use for accessing drug information, students overwhelmingly preferred use of a laptop or notebook (77%, 195/254), followed by smartphones (17%, 44/254), desktops (3%, 8/254), and tablets (2%, 4/254). In contrast, only 40% (12/30) of faculty owned and preferred to use laptop or notebook computers, with a higher proportion preferring desktop comput- ers (27%, 8/30), smartphones (27%, 8/30), and tablets (7%, 2/30) compared with students.

Respondents were then asked to indicate their interest in obtaining drug information on devices that they did not currently use to access drug information. Although most faculty (63%, 19/30) and students (53%, 134/252) were not interested in obtaining drug information on an e-reader, more faculty than students expressed interest in accessing information on tablet computers (53%, 16/30 versus 30%, 76/254, respec- tively) and more students than faculty indicated interest in obtaining drug information on a smartphone (43%).

Textbook resources

Sixty-five percent of all respondents preferred to access textbooks electronically rather than in the physical resource library. More faculty respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred to purchase print versions of textbooks that they frequently used com- pared with students (47% versus 40%, respectively).

As expected, frequency of electronic textbook use was less for P1 students compared with P2, P3, and P4 students and faculty (Figure 1, online only), and the use of print resources was low for all respondents (Figure 2, online only). When asked about reading preferences, most students preferred to read electron- ic textbooks directly from the electronic device (60%, 153/253), while faculty preferred to print out the selection and read from paper (57%, 17/30).

Drug information databases, electronic newsletters, and secondary databases

With respect to tertiary drug information databases, 53% (16/30) of faculty and 74% (114/155) of P2-P4 students ranked Lexicomp Online as their most preferred tertiary drug information resource. The second most preferred resource among faculty was Micromedex (30%, 9/30), while P2-P4 students were split between Micromedex (34%, 53/155) and Facts & Comparisons eAnswers (34%, 52/155) (Table 2,online only)

With the exception of PubMed and Google Scholar, faculty and students indicated extremely low utiliza- tion of other secondary databases (e.g., CINAHL, IPA, PsycINFO). When asked how frequently respondents used PubMed, most faculty indicated ''once-daily'' use (35%, 10/29), while the most common response among students was ''2 to 3 times weekly'' (36%, 90/249).

General preferences

When asked for overall preference, 71% (20/28) of faculty and 62% (153/246) of students would rather use electronic than print resources.

DISCUSSION

The appropriate allocation of library resources is critical in today's difficult economic climate. In the face of budget constraints, many pharmacy schools can no longer afford to maintain all of the physical and electronic drug information resources that are currently available. Although many factors influence purchasing decisions, the end user's preferences are of paramount importance. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to assess preferences of pharmacy students and faculty regarding both the type of drug information resource and platform used to access these resources.

The results of this survey showed that the use of drug information resources is similar between phar- macy students and faculty, with both groups prefer- ring electronic access to drug information. Laptop and desktop computers were the most preferred platform by both groups, compared with smartphones and tablets. These results were similar to those in a study by Getting, who noted that 50% of the retail and hospital pharmacists surveyed preferred using ''elec- tronic/desktop resources,'' although the specific resources were not described [11]. Of note, faculty who did not currently own a tablet computer expressed more interest in obtaining drug informa- tion on such a device than did student non-owners. Faculty indicated greater likelihood to print out material from an electronic device than students, who expressed a preference to read information directly from the screen of a device.

Results also indicate that the use of e-readers for electronic textbooks is currently not of interest to students and faculty. Smartphones are of some interest to students for accessing information; how- ever, the primary device is a laptop or notebook computer. This result is best explained by the program's requirement to purchase a laptop comput- er for use during the P1, P2, and P3 years of the curriculum. Students in the program do participate in an inpatient and ambulatory care clinical experiential rotation during the P3 year with a faculty member and are expected to have a resource for accessing drug information. Some students choose to purchase a pocket reference or use a smartphone for this purpose; however, widespread adoption of a mobile device is not observed until the P4 year and is not required by the program. Another explanation for the lower-than-expected smartphone preference could be the availability of stationary computer terminals or computers on wheels, which are often accessible in hospitals that use an electronic health record system. These devices allow easy access to health records and pharmacotherapy information close to the patient's bedside. Similarly, many hospitals and clinics have begun distributing laptop or tablet computers to pharmacists for use on rounds [8]. Due to the availability of these other devices, it may not be necessary for a user to access drug- related information on a smartphone or other mobile platform.

With respect to database preference, the majority of faculty and students ranked Lexicomp Online as their most preferred tertiary drug resource. This finding might be helpful to medical libraries and colleges of pharmacy that need to streamline their tertiary drug information databases to a single resource that both students and faculty prefer. While not specifically assessed in this study, one potential explanation for this finding could be the concise, easy-to-use format of Lexicomp Online compared with other tertiary databases. Although there are little published data on this topic, the results of this study are similar to those found by Kupferberg and colleagues at the Ohio State University. In their study, pharmacy students, phar- macy faculty, and medical librarians used several common drug databases to answer ten drug informa- tion questions. Overall, pharmacy faculty ranked Lexicomp Online as the most preferred resource, while pharmacy students ranked Facts & Compari- sons eAnswers highest. One of the most important factors to participants was how easily the databases could be used and navigated [9].

This study also highlighted the differences in textbook use between pharmacy students and faculty. Both faculty and students used electronic textbooks frequently; however, more faculty preferred to pur- chase textbooks and read from paper copies, whereas students preferred to read directly from electronic devices. One potential explanation could be the age difference between faculty and students. Although the age of the respondents was not collected in this study, it might be assumed that faculty were older than students and some might not be as comfortable using electronic media. Another potential explanation might be that faculty purchase textbooks because they were needed to develop course material on a yearly basis, whereas students might only need a textbook for a single semester.

This study had several limitations. A large number (38%) of overall responses were received from students in their P1 year. While these students were enrolled in an introductory course on biomedical references, they were not routinely using resources for finding drug information. Similarly, the response rate among students in their P4 year was lower than desired, with 39% of P4 students responding com- pared with a greater than 82% response rate for each of the other subgroups. Another limitation might be the timing of the survey administration. The survey instrument was distributed during the first month of the fall semester, at which point P2 students might not have begun using these resources in their coursework. Lastly, because this study was conducted at a single college of pharmacy, the results might not be applica- ble to other institutions with different demographics or access to other drug information resources.

Footnote

* Data that are of local interest to the institution (such as satisfaction with the variety of resources provided) were also assessed in the survey but will not be presented in this report.

References

REFERENCES

1. National Library of Medicine. A factual survey on the nature and magnitude of drug literature by the National Library of Medicine before the Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations, 88th Cong, 1st Sess. (1963).

2. Siracuse MV, Sowell JG. Doctor of pharmacy students' use of personal digital assistants. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008 Feb;72(1):7.

3. DeHart RM, Monk-Tutor MR, Worthington MA, Price SO, Sowell JG. Schoolwide implementation of personal digital assistants (PDAs): a first-year report. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004 Oct;68(4):98.

4. Dasgupta A, Sansgiry SS, Sheret JT, Wallace D, Sikri S. Pharmacists' utilization and interest in usage of personal digital assistants in their professional responsibilities. Health Info Lib J. 2010 Mar;27(1):37-45.

5. Barrett JR, Strayer SM, Schubart JR. Assessing medical residents' usage and perceived needs for personal digital assistants. Int J Med Inform. 2004 Feb;73(1):25-34.

6. Prgomet M, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI. The impact of mobile handheld technology on hospital physicians' work practices and patient care: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Nov-Dec;16(6):792-801.

7. De Groote SL, Doranski M. The use of personal digital assistants in the health sciences: results of a survey. J Med Lib Assoc. 2004 Jul;92(3):341-8.

8. Cockerham M. Use of a tablet personal computer to enhance patient care on multidisciplinary rounds. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009 Nov 1;66(21):1909-11.

9. Kupferberg N, Hartel LJ. Evaluation of five full-text drug databases by pharmacy students, faculty, and librarians: do the groups agree? J Med Lib Assoc. 2004 Jan;92(1):66-71.

10. Cole SW, Berensen NM. Comparison of drug informa- tion practice curriculum components in US colleges of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2005 Apr;69(2):34.

11. Getting JP. Drug information availability and prefer- ences of health care professionals in Illinois: a pilot survey study. Drug Inf J. 2008;42:263-72.