ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Preference and usage pattern of mobile medical apps for drug information purposes among hospital pharmacists in Sarawak, Malaysia.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective observational study evaluating drug-related problems and their impact on patient-related outcomes in hospitalized epileptic patients.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Nationwide assessment of community pharmacists' practices and atorvastatin-drug interactions in Egypt.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Organizing and Sharing Medical Knowledge Among Anesthesiology and Intensive care Residents: Evaluating Existing Practices and the Feasibility of Implementing a Dedicated Multiplatform Application.Journal of medical systems · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPharmacists are frequent users of mobile medical apps (MMA) for drug information (DI) and clinical decision-making purposes. However, the wide range of available MMA may be of variable credibility and results in heterogeneous recommendations. The need for subscription may also influence choice of apps.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to determine the usage pattern of MMA among hospital pharmacists, including their perceptions and factors affecting their choice of apps.
methodsThis cross-sectional study required respondents to fill in an online questionnaire. The questionnaire included sections on respondents' demographic data, MMA usage pattern, perceived usefulness and opinion on subscription fees. Items were adapted from available literature and validated locally. It was made accessible for 6 weeks starting November 2019 for all pharmacists working in the 23 public hospitals in Sarawak to response (universal sampling). Collected data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
resultsA response rate of 37.2% was achieved (n = 162). Respondents were heavily reliant on MMA, with 78.4% accessing them multiple times daily. The majority also agreed that MMA contain correct and up-to-date information. A median of 5 apps were downloaded, suggesting an ultimate app catering for all DI needs was lacking. The Malaysian Drug Formulary was the most downloaded app (88.3%), whereas Lexicomp® was the most "well-rounded" in terms of functionality. Clinical pharmacists were significantly more likely to purchase MMA, in particular UpToDate® (p < 0.01) due to their need to access clinical updates. Respondents highly recommended institutional access for either UpToDate® or Lexicomp® be made available. Pre-registration pharmacists should be guided on judicious MMA usage, as they downloaded significantly more apps and were more likely to indicate not knowing which DI recommendation to follow (both p < 0.01).
conclusionMMA has become an indispensable tool for hospital pharmacists, however there was a tendency to download multiple apps for DI needs. Institutional access can be considered for credible apps identified to ensure accuracy and uniformity of DI recommendations, with purchase decision made after surveying the needs and preferences of end users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.