Dataset Information

Multicenter randomized comparative trial of Micromedex, Micromedex with Watson, or Google to answer drug information questions.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare pharmacy students' ability to correctly answer drug information questions using Micromedex with Watson, Micromedex without Watson, or Google.

Methods

This multicenter randomized trial compared pharmacy student responses to drug information questions using Micromedex with Watson, Micromedex without Watson, or Google from January to March of 2020. First- to fourth-year pharmacy students at two institutions were included. The primary outcome was the number of correct answers. Secondary outcomes were the time taken to answer the questions and differences in number of correct answers by pharmacy student year and institution.

Results

The analysis included 162 participants: 52 students in the Micromedex group, 51 students in the Watson group, and 59 students in the Google group. There was a significant difference among groups in the total number of questions answered correctly (p=0.02). Post-hoc analysis revealed that participants in the Micromedex group answered more questions correctly than those in the Google group (p=0.015). There were no significant differences between Micromedex and Watson groups (p=0.52) or between Watson and Google groups (p=0.22). There was also no difference in time to complete the questions among groups (p=0.72).

Conclusion

Utilizing Google did not save students time and led to more incorrect answers. These findings suggest that health care educators and health sciences librarians should further reinforce training on the appropriate use of drug information resources.

SUBMITTER: Giuliano C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270367 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommon information facilities do not always provide the quality information needed to answer questions on health or health-related issues, such as Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) matters. Barriers may be the accessibility, quantity and readability of information. Online Question & Answer (Q&A) network tools, which link questioners directly to experts can overcome some of these barriers. When designing and testing online tools, assessing the usability and applicability is essential. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the usability and applicability of a new online Q&A network tool for answers on OSH questions.MethodsWe applied a cross-sectional usability test design. Eight occupational health experts and twelve potential questioners from the working population (workers) were purposively selected to include a variety of computer- and internet-experiences. During the test, participants were first observed while executing eight tasks that entailed important features of the tool. In addition, they were interviewed. Through task observations and interviews we assessed applicability, usability (effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction) and facilitators and barriers in use.ResultsMost features were usable, though several could be improved. Most tasks were executed effectively. Some tasks, for example searching stored questions in categories, were not executed efficiently and participants were less satisfied with the corresponding features. Participants' recommendations led to improvements. The tool was found mostly applicable for additional information, to observe new OSH trends and to improve contact between OSH experts and workers. Hosting and support by a trustworthy professional organization, effective implementation campaigns, timely answering and anonymity were seen as important use requirements.ConclusionsThis network tool is a promising new strategy for offering company workers high quality information to answer OSH questions. Q&A network tools can be an addition to existing information facilities in the field of OSH, but also to other healthcare fields struggling with how to answer questions from people in practice with high quality information. In the near future, we will focus on the use of the tool and its effects on information and knowledge dissemination.

Project description:BackgroundApproximately 1 in 4 adults will develop hallux valgus (HV). Up to 80% of adult Internet users reference online sources for health-related information. Overall, with the high prevalence of HV combined with the numerous treatment options, we believe patients are likely turning to Internet search engines for questions relevant to HV. Using Google's people also ask (PAA) or frequently asked questions (FAQs) feature, we sought to classify these questions, categorize the sources, as well as assess their levels of quality and transparency.MethodsOn October 9, 2022, we searched Google using these 4 phrases: "hallux valgus treatment," "hallux valgus surgery," "bunion treatment," and "bunion surgery." The FAQs were classified in accordance with the Rothwell Classification schema and each source was categorized. Lastly, transparency and quality of the sources' information were evaluated with the Journal of the American Medical Association's (JAMA) Benchmark tool and Brief DISCERN, respectively.ResultsOnce duplicates and FAQs unrelated to HV were removed, our search returned 299 unique FAQs. The most common question in our sample was related to the evaluation of treatment options (79/299, 26.4%). The most common source type was medical practices (158/299, 52.8%). Nearly two-thirds of the answer sources (184/299; 61.5%) were lacking in transparency. One-way analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in mean Brief DISCERN scores among the 5 source types, F(4) = 54.49 (P < .001), with medical practices averaging the worst score (12.1/30).ConclusionPatients seeking online information concerning treatment options for HV search for questions pertaining to the evaluation of treatment options. The source type encountered most by patients is medical practices; these were found to have both poor transparency and poor quality. Publishing basic information such as the date of publication, authors or reviewers, and references would greatly improve the transparency and quality of online information regarding HV treatment.Level of evidenceLevel V, mechanism-based reasoning.