Niina Mononen1, Riina Järvinen2, Katri Hämeen-Anttila3, Marja Airaksinen2, Charlotte Bonhomme4, Jenni Kleme2, Marika Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä2. 1. Division of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Pharmacy, PO Box 56, University of Helsinki, Finland. Electronic address: niina.mononen@helsinki.fi. 2. Division of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Pharmacy, PO Box 56, University of Helsinki, Finland. 3. Finnish Medicines Agency Fimea, PO Box 55, 00034 Fimea, Kuopio, Finland. 4. Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Montpellier, 15 avenue Charles Flahault, BP 14491, 34093 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Finnish Medicines Agency Fimea published the first National Medicines Information (MI) strategy in 2012. For the purpose of implementing the MI strategy into practice by the national MI Network, a comprehensive inventory of MI research in Finland was needed. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review literature on MI research conducted in Finland by analyzing and classifying the studies, and identifying the gaps in MI research. METHODS: Medline, Scopus and Medic databases were searched for peer-reviewed MI publications by using key word screening criteria. The search and extraction process followed PRISMA Guidelines and covered the period from January 2000 to June 2016. Included studies were content analyzed according to MI practices identified, trends over time in research methodology and theory. RESULTS: Included publications (n = 126) applied a variety of research methods, most often cross-sectional surveys (n = 51, 40% of all studies), but more than half of the studies were qualitative (n = 68, 54%). Twelve were intervention studies of which 6 were randomized and had a control group. Studies were categorized into: patient counseling in different settings (n = 45); MI sources and needs of medicine users (n = 25); healthcare professionals' (HCPs) competence in patient counseling and pharmacotherapy (n = 25); MI sources and needs of HCPs (n = 23); MI education and literacy (n = 13); and MI policies and strategies (n = 3). Most of the studies were descriptive, and only 6 studies applied a theory. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of some methodological pitfalls, MI research conducted in Finland since 2000 provides multifaceted understanding of MI practices and their development needs. Research should shift towards larger research lines having a stronger theory base and study designs to deepen the understanding of MI practices and behaviors, and effectiveness of MI in different healthcare settings. Future research should cover also the use of electronic MI sources and services which apply modern information technology to clinical decision making and medication reviews, national MI policy, MI literacy, MI needs of HCPs and consumers.
BACKGROUND: The Finnish Medicines Agency Fimea published the first National Medicines Information (MI) strategy in 2012. For the purpose of implementing the MI strategy into practice by the national MI Network, a comprehensive inventory of MI research in Finland was needed. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review literature on MI research conducted in Finland by analyzing and classifying the studies, and identifying the gaps in MI research. METHODS: Medline, Scopus and Medic databases were searched for peer-reviewed MI publications by using key word screening criteria. The search and extraction process followed PRISMA Guidelines and covered the period from January 2000 to June 2016. Included studies were content analyzed according to MI practices identified, trends over time in research methodology and theory. RESULTS: Included publications (n = 126) applied a variety of research methods, most often cross-sectional surveys (n = 51, 40% of all studies), but more than half of the studies were qualitative (n = 68, 54%). Twelve were intervention studies of which 6 were randomized and had a control group. Studies were categorized into: patient counseling in different settings (n = 45); MI sources and needs of medicine users (n = 25); healthcare professionals' (HCPs) competence in patient counseling and pharmacotherapy (n = 25); MI sources and needs of HCPs (n = 23); MI education and literacy (n = 13); and MI policies and strategies (n = 3). Most of the studies were descriptive, and only 6 studies applied a theory. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of some methodological pitfalls, MI research conducted in Finland since 2000 provides multifaceted understanding of MI practices and their development needs. Research should shift towards larger research lines having a stronger theory base and study designs to deepen the understanding of MI practices and behaviors, and effectiveness of MI in different healthcare settings. Future research should cover also the use of electronic MI sources and services which apply modern information technology to clinical decision making and medication reviews, national MI policy, MI literacy, MI needs of HCPs and consumers.