Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31203239›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Trends in the receipt of medicines information among Finnish adults in 1999-2014: a nationwide repeated cross-sectional survey.

Niina Mononen, Marja S A Airaksinen, Katri Hämeen-Anttila, Satu Helakorpi, Marika Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Niina MononenClinical Pharmacy Group, Division of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-7846-3492
Marja S A AiraksinenClinical Pharmacy Group, Division of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Katri Hämeen-AnttilaAssessment of Pharmacotherapies, Finnish Medicines Agency FIMEA, Kuopio, Finland.
Satu HelakorpiDepartment of Welfare, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland.
Marika Pohjanoksa-MäntyläClinical Pharmacy Group, Division of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FIFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FIFinnish Medicines Agency Fimea · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine long-term trends in the receipt of medicines information (MI) among adult medicine users from 1999 to 2014.

designRepeated cross-sectional postal survey from the years 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2008-2014.

settingEach study year, a new nationally representative sample of 5000 Finns aged 15-64 years was drawn from the Population Register Centre of Finland.

participantsThe range of annual respondents varied from 2545 to 3371 and response rates from 53% to 67%. Of the total responses (n=29 465), 64% were from medicine users (n=18 862, ranging by year from 58% to 68%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Receipt of information on medicines in use within 12 months prior to the survey from a given list of consumer MI sources available in Finland.

resultsPhysicians, community pharmacists and package leaflets were the most common MI sources throughout the study period. Receipt of MI increased most from the Internet (from 1% in 1999 to 16% in 2014), while decreased most from physicians (62% to 47%) and package leaflets (44% to 34%), and remained stable from community pharmacists (46% to 45%) and nurses (14% to 14%). In 1999, of the medicine users 4% did not report receipt of MI from any of the sources listed in the survey, while this proportion had remarkably increased to 28% in 2014.

conclusionsHealthcare professionals and package leaflets had still a dominating importance in 2014 despite the growing number of MI sources over time, but still a minority of adult medicine users reported receiving MI via the Internet in 2014. Worrying is that the proportion of adult medicine users who did not receive MI from any of the sources became seven fold during the study period.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPamphletsAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDrug Information ServicesDrug LabelingFemaleFinlandHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansInformation DisseminationInternetLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle Agedfinlandmedicines informationmedicines information sourcespopulation studyrepeated cross-sectional survey

Identifiers

PMID31203239
PMCPMC6588993
OpenAlexW2951448941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.