Receipt of Medicines Information From the Internet and Other Information Sources Among Adult Medicine Users in Developed Economies, 2010-2025: Systematic Review.

Background: The internet, social media, and digital health tools have transformed access and receipt of medicines information (MI), complementing or replacing traditional sources, such as physicians, pharmacists, and package leaflets. Objective: This study aimed to examine the prevalence and patterns of adult medicine users' receipt of MI from electronic sources (eg, internet and social media) compared with traditional sources, and to assess trends in the receipt of MI in developed economies since 2010. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Scopus (including Embase and MEDLINE), and Web of Science databases for peer-reviewed studies conducted and published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2025. Studies including adults (≥18 years) in developed economies were eligible. The review followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Due to substantial heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively without meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-six studies from 10 countries, involving 19,891 medicine users, were included. Most studies were cross-sectional surveys (n=19), with only one being a national long-term trend study. Physicians, pharmacists, and package leaflets consistently remained the most common MI sources, irrespective of patient group, country, or study design. No clear temporal trends in MI receipt were observed. Variations in the frequency of MI receipt were evident across research methods, medicine user groups, and types of medicines. Individuals with greater familiarity with the internet were more likely to receive MI from electronic sources, such as websites and social media. In most studies, MI obtained from social media was not distinguished from other internet-based sources. Half of the studies focused on heterogeneous medicine user groups (n=14), while the remainder examined specific medicine user groups (n=12). Although the methodological quality of the studies was generally acceptable, only 3 studies reported the use of an explicit theoretical framework. Conclusions: Traditional MI sources remain central for adult medicine users despite the growing role of electronic platforms. While the receipt of MI from electronic sources appears more common among internet-experienced users, no significant temporal trends in using these sources were identified. Further research is needed to better distinguish between different digital MI sources, including artificial intelligence-based MI sources, and to explore their evolving roles, implications for health-related decision-making, and associations with user characteristics and health contexts in the digital era. This review is innovative in systematically comparing traditional and electronic MI sources across developed economies and in highlighting methodological and conceptual gaps in existing research. By synthesizing cross-national evidence and identifying the need for clearer differentiation of digital MI subtypes, the study contributes to the field and informs the development of more targeted, reliable, and user-centered MI strategies in real-world health care settings.