Skip to main content
Log in

General Medical Practitioners’ Approaches to Accessing Animate Sources of Drug Information

  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the decision making approaches for problem solving used by general medical practitioners (GPs) when accessing the animate information sources, colleagues, consultants, drug information centers (DICs), medical information centers, hospital pharmacists, and community pharmacists. Of 463 GPs practicing within the county boundary of Derbyshire on January 1, 1990,106 were randomly sampled from groups stratified for age; gender; type of practice, single or group; and, use or nonuse of DICs. One hundred interviews were conducted. Structured inspection of transcripts indicated that, if a source was used, it was for either mechanical solutions and allocated to “prescribing practice,” or for “general drug information” which encompassed use for subjective problem solving. For each animate information source, GPs’ approaches to “general drug information “ use were collated, categorized, and inspected for global trends. This identified two fundamental, discrete approaches. Forty-eight percent of those interviewed, representing 218/463 of the sample frame, were categorized as “source-dependent” and relied predominantly on one or two specific sources or had a method they applied to all situations. These were distinct from the remaining “problem-dependent “ GPs who used multiple information sources in a manner dedicated to resolving each problem as though it were unique. No significant differences were found in epidemiological characteristics when GPs were grouped into source-dependent and problem-dependent categories. That GPs could be readily differentiated by two distinct approaches has implications for optimizing the provision of information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Worthen DB. Prescribing influences: An overview. Br Med J Educ. 1973;7:109–117.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Herman CM, Radowskas CA. Community drug information to physicians. J Med Educ. 1976;51:189–196.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Carney T. Workload of general practitioners. Br Med J. 1989;299:753.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bain J. General practices and the new contract. (II) Future directions. Br Med J. 1991;302:1247–1249.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Barley S. The literature of general practice. In Westcott R, Jones RVH, (eds). Information handling in general practice. London: Croom Helm; 1988: 22–39.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brodie DC (ed). Drug information: literature review of needs, resources, and services. American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. Report No. PB-223 198, 1972. (Available from National Technical Information Services-NTIS, Springfield, VA)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eaton G, Parish P. Sources of drug information used by general practitioners. J Roy Coll Gen Pract. 1976; 26(Supp 1):58–64.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lipsky M. Streel-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1980:19:203.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clark JC, Gerrett D. General medical practitioners’ perceived use of drug information sources. Int J Pharm Prac. 1994;2(1):247–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Miles MB, Huberman MA. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed). London: Sage Publications; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33: 159–174.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bucks RS, Williams A, Whitfield MJ, Routh DA. Toward a typology of general practitioners’ attitudes to general practice. Soc Sci Med. 1990;30:537–547.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Miles MB. New methods for qualitative data collection and analysis: Vignettes and pre-structured cases. Qual Stud Educ. 1990;3(1):37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bloor M. Bishop Berkeley and the adenotonsillectomy enigma. Sociology. 1976;10:43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Therapeutic decison making of physicians. Pharm Weekbl (Sci). 1992; 14:9–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sheldon M, Brooke J, Rector A (Eds). Decisionmaking in general practice. Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press Ltd; 1985:1–12, 31–46, 95–118, 257–269.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Ed Quart. 1988;15:175–183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The work was conducted at the Medicines Research Unit of the University of Derby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gerrett, D., Clark, J.C. General Medical Practitioners’ Approaches to Accessing Animate Sources of Drug Information. Ther Innov Regul Sci 31, 221–227 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159703100131

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159703100131

Key Words

Navigation