Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026
Pharmacist resource use across the United States: implications for teaching and practice.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Whitney Rachel, Jasmin Hilary, Giuliano Christopher Alan, Kostrzewa Audrey Banner, Hunter Melissa, Wisniewski Christopher S, Gorman Emily F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze practicing pharmacists' use of drug information (DI) resources in the United States.
METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to practicing US pharmacists through professional organization email lists and social media. The survey questionnaire asked respondents which subscription-based DI resources are provided through their employer, whether they personally pay for additional resources, how often they use subscription-based resources, and other related questions.
RESULTS: The survey received 430 responses, 387 of which were able to be fully analyzed. The resources that respondents most frequently had access to through their employer were UpToDate (77.0%), Lexicomp (74.9%), and Micromedex (62.3%). Many respondents (40.8%) paid for subscriptions with personal funds, and 28.9% reported never experiencing access issues due to payment barriers. Respondents in community settings were more likely to have paid for resources with personal funds (57.1%, p<0.05) and have less access to resources (51.4%, p<0.05). In the open-text responses, the most desired resources were point-of-care tools (UpToDate) and DI databases (Lexicomp).
CONCLUSIONS: US pharmacists experience a varied level of access to DI resources through their employer. Pharmacy educators should focus their instruction on resources that are the most accessible to practicing pharmacists. Many, especially community pharmacists, pay out of pocket for desired resources, presenting an opportunity to advocate for increased resources.
METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to practicing US pharmacists through professional organization email lists and social media. The survey questionnaire asked respondents which subscription-based DI resources are provided through their employer, whether they personally pay for additional resources, how often they use subscription-based resources, and other related questions.
RESULTS: The survey received 430 responses, 387 of which were able to be fully analyzed. The resources that respondents most frequently had access to through their employer were UpToDate (77.0%), Lexicomp (74.9%), and Micromedex (62.3%). Many respondents (40.8%) paid for subscriptions with personal funds, and 28.9% reported never experiencing access issues due to payment barriers. Respondents in community settings were more likely to have paid for resources with personal funds (57.1%, p<0.05) and have less access to resources (51.4%, p<0.05). In the open-text responses, the most desired resources were point-of-care tools (UpToDate) and DI databases (Lexicomp).
CONCLUSIONS: US pharmacists experience a varied level of access to DI resources through their employer. Pharmacy educators should focus their instruction on resources that are the most accessible to practicing pharmacists. Many, especially community pharmacists, pay out of pocket for desired resources, presenting an opportunity to advocate for increased resources.