Natalie Kupferberg1, Lynda Jones Hartel. 1. Biological Sciences/Pharmacy Library, The Ohio State University, 102 Riffe Building, 496 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. kupferberg.1@osu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to assess the usefulness of five full-text drug databases as evaluated by medical librarians, pharmacy faculty, and pharmacy students at an academic health center. Study findings and recommendations are offered as guidance to librarians responsible for purchasing decisions. METHODS: Four pharmacy students, four pharmacy faculty members, and four medical librarians answered ten drug information questions using the databases AHFS Drug Information (STAT!Ref); DRUGDEX (Micromedex); eFacts (Drug Facts and Comparisons); Lexi-Drugs Online (Lexi-Comp); and the PDR Electronic Library (Micromedex). Participants noted whether each database contained answers to the questions and evaluated each database on ease of navigation, screen readability, overall satisfaction, and product recommendation. RESULTS: While each study group found that DRUGDEX provided the most direct answers to the ten questions, faculty members gave Lexi-Drugs the highest overall rating. Students favored eFacts. The faculty and students found the PDR least useful. Librarians ranked DRUGDEX the highest and AHFS the lowest. The comments of pharmacy faculty and students show that these groups preferred concise, easy-to-use sources; librarians focused on the comprehensiveness, layout, and supporting references of the databases. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the importance of consulting with primary clientele before purchasing databases. Although there are many online drug databases to consider, present findings offer strong support for eFacts, Lexi-Drugs, and DRUGDEX.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to assess the usefulness of five full-text drug databases as evaluated by medical librarians, pharmacy faculty, and pharmacy students at an academic health center. Study findings and recommendations are offered as guidance to librarians responsible for purchasing decisions. METHODS: Four pharmacy students, four pharmacy faculty members, and four medical librarians answered ten drug information questions using the databases AHFS Drug Information (STAT!Ref); DRUGDEX (Micromedex); eFacts (Drug Facts and Comparisons); Lexi-Drugs Online (Lexi-Comp); and the PDR Electronic Library (Micromedex). Participants noted whether each database contained answers to the questions and evaluated each database on ease of navigation, screen readability, overall satisfaction, and product recommendation. RESULTS: While each study group found that DRUGDEX provided the most direct answers to the ten questions, faculty members gave Lexi-Drugs the highest overall rating. Students favored eFacts. The faculty and students found the PDR least useful. Librarians ranked DRUGDEX the highest and AHFS the lowest. The comments of pharmacy faculty and students show that these groups preferred concise, easy-to-use sources; librarians focused on the comprehensiveness, layout, and supporting references of the databases. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the importance of consulting with primary clientele before purchasing databases. Although there are many online drug databases to consider, present findings offer strong support for eFacts, Lexi-Drugs, and DRUGDEX.