METHODS: A review and comparison of mHealth apps for caring of older people available in Google's Play Store (Android system) and Apple's App Store (iOS system) were performed. Systematic review of previous relevant literature were conducted. The assessment criteria used for comparison were requirement for Internet connection, information of disease, size of app, diagnostics and assessment tools, medical calculator, dosage recommendations and indications, clinical updates, drugs interaction checker, and information on disease management.
RESULTS: Twenty-five mHealth apps were assessed. Medscape and Skyscape Medical Library are the most comprehensive mHealth apps for general drug information, medical references, clinical score, and medical calculator. Alzheimer's Disease Pocketcard and Confusion: Delirium & Dementia: A Bedside Guide apps are recommended for clinical assessment, diagnosis, drug information, and management of geriatric patients with Alzheimer disease, delirium, and dementia.
CONCLUSIONS: More studies about mHealth apps for caring of older people are warranted to ensure the quality and reliability of the mHealth apps.
METHODS: A review and comparison of mHealth apps in pediatric care found in Google's Play Store (Android system) and Apple's App Store (iOS system) were performed. For the structured review of the available literature, Google Scholar, PubMed, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and Science Direct online databases were used for the literature search. The assessment criteria used for comparison included requirement for Internet connection, size of application, information on disease, diagnostic tools, medical calculator, information on disease treatments, dosage recommendations, and drug interaction checker.
RESULTS: Fifty mHealth apps for general pediatric care and 8 mHealth apps for specific pediatric diseases were discussed in the literature. Of the 90 mHealth apps we reviewed, 27 that fulfilled the study criteria were selected for quality assessment. Medscape, Skyscape, and iGuideline scored the highest (score=7), while PediaBP scored the lowest (score=3).
CONCLUSIONS: Medscape, Skyscape, and iGuideline are the most comprehensive mHealth apps for HCPs as quick references for pediatric care. More studies about mHealth apps in pediatric care are warranted to ensure the quality and reliability of mHealth apps.
METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design and convenient sampling, data were collected in public areas within Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, via face-to-face interview with a structured questionnaire. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the significant predictors of patients' confidence in ADR reporting.
RESULTS: Out of 860 consented respondents achieving a response rate of 73.5%, only 69 (8%) were aware of the Malaysian ADR monitoring system. The majority (60%) of the respondents indicated they had the confidence to report ADRs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that ease in completing the ADR reporting form was the strongest variable predictive of confidence to report ADRs (odds ratio [OR], 18.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.55-32.25). Increased confidence in ADR reporting was also associated with education level. Respondents with a higher education level were more likely to be confident to report ADRs compared to those with primary or no formal education (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 0.77-8.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Lack of awareness of the ADR monitoring system is still prevalent among Malaysian patients. The ease of completing the ADR form and education level are predictive of patient confidence to report ADRs. These factors should be considered in designing public promotional activities to encourage patient contributions to pharmacovigilance.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire carried out from September to October 2013. Survey respondents were recruited from 4 divisions in Sarawak: Kuching, Sibu, Miri, and Bintulu.
RESULTS: A total of 433 completed questionnaires were obtained at the end of the study period. All respondents had access to common mass media such as television (89.8%, 389/433), radio (68.6%, 297/433), and the Internet (66.1%, 286/433). Among all respondents, television (71.4%, 309/433) was noted as the most preferred media for drug-related information. Compared with rural respondents, urban respondents were significantly more likely to have access to and prefer the Internet to obtain drug-related information. On the other hand, rural respondents were more likely to have access to and prefer radio for such information compared to their urban counterparts.
CONCLUSIONS: Television can be an important and attractive choice of mass media in a quality use of medicines (QUM) campaign. The Internet can be used to disseminate drug-related information in urban areas, whereas radio can be used in a QUM campaign targeting the rural public.
METHODS: This is a retrospective observation study from the Sarawak state Pharmaceutical Enforcement Division (PED) inspection reports on CPs and GPs from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. Descriptive statistics in numbers and percentages are used to present the results.
RESULTS: From years 2012 to 2014, the compliance rate of GPs increased from 34% to 51%, while the compliance rate of CPs remained almost constant, with a slight drop from 53% (2012) to 50% (2014). The most common noncompliance found among CPs is with the Poison Acts 1952 Section 26 Condition 2: "Records for the supply of preparations containing Pseudoephedrine, Ephedrine and Dextromethorphan," and among GPs, it is the Regulation 12 of Poisons Regulation 1952: "labeling of dispensed medicines." Warning letter is the most effective disciplinary action for both CPs (75% improvement) and GPs (67.8% improvement).
CONCLUSION: This study serves as a baseline that provides valuable insights to policy makers, researchers, and other stakeholders in developing better enforcement strategies.
METHODS: A convenience sampling method was adopted to invite pharmacists (N = 450) working in various sectors such as hospitals, the drug approval authority, and academia to participate in this online survey. A 36-item questionnaire was administered, and data were summarized and presented using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: The response rate to this survey was 49.8% (n = 224). Overall, 213 respondents (95.1%) were active HHCs users in their daily clinical practice. About 194 respondents (86.6%) disclosed that they often use HHCs for searching DI. Dosage recommendations (n = 198; 88.4%), adverse drug reactions (n = 153; 68.3%), and drug interactions (n = 146; 65.2%) were the most common DI retrieved. Meanwhile, general dosage recommendation, pediatric dosage recommendations and dosage recommendations for renal failure were ranked as the most important DI in mobile medical applications. Gaining access to the latest information on drugs and clinical practice were regarded as the most important functions of the mobile medical app.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of HHCs for DI among pharmacists in Malaysia was high. The use of locally produced DI sources is still low compared to overseas sources. The most popular applications used for drug-related medical information were Micromedex, followed by Lexicomp and Medscape.
METHOD: A review and comparison of mobile apps available in Google's Play Store (Android system) and Apple's App Store (iOS system) were performed. The comparison was based on the availability of options, especially DoReADI functionalities. The assessment criteria were as follows: requirement for an Internet connection, subscription fee charged, size of app, dose recommendation, drug indication, dose calculator, drug picture, dose adjustment, pregnancy safety, interaction checker, interaction classification, clinical teaching advice, contraindicated drug, black box warning, adverse effect, contraindication or precaution, as well as toxicology and pharmacology information.
RESULTS: Eight mobile medical apps were included and used to compare their features and functionalities. The 4 apps that scored the highest (14/17 points) are: Lexicomp®, Epocrates®, Micromedex®, and Drugs.com ®. Lexicomp and Micromedex do not provide the image of the drug and have an access subscription fee. Epocrates does not provide interaction classification and clinical teaching advice, and occupies a large space in the memory to be installed. Meanwhile, My Blue Book® scored the lowest (9/17 points) because certain features such as toxicology information, drug interaction, clinical teaching advice, contraindicated drug, and black box warning were not included.
CONCLUSION: Based on the features assessment criteria of each mobile medical application, Lexicomp, Epocrates, Micromedex, and Drugs.com are the apps that scored the highest. Epocrates and Micromedex are useful for checking drug interactions. In addition, some of the apps have additional features for the DoReADI criteria, for example, dose calculator and interaction classification.
METHODS: This research aims to compare evaluation practice on biosimilar and novel BTPs at the Biological Product Registration Section in Malaysia. Evaluation activities were studied in terms of evaluation questions, evaluation timeline, nonclinical and clinical requirements, and local requirements on product label (including package insert). Six biosimilar product dossiers and 6 novel BTP dossiers evaluated in 2013-2015 were sampled. Parameters for comparison were determined and analyzed using data collection forms. Specific to the biosimilar products, the evaluation practice on labels and package inserts were dissected and described in a qualitative arm of this research.
RESULTS: Generally, the registration requirements of novel BTPs and biosimilar products are in agreement with international regulatory practices. However, some labeling and package insert requirements, and registration conditions are unique to the Malaysian regulatory context.
CONCLUSIONS: Study findings revealed some similarities and differences in current evaluation practice (timeline and requirements) for biosimilar versus novel BTPs. The findings of this research also provide an insight on current evaluation practice on biosimilar product labeling.