Opinions and Trends of Healthcare Providers Concerning Scientific/Standard Response Documents.

Background: One of the main roles of the medical information (MI) department within a pharmaceutical company is to develop scientific/standard response documents (SRDs) to provide comprehensive medical information to healthcare providers (HCPs). This study seeks to gain HCP feedback on the various elements in the format of an SRD.

Methods: This study surveyed 400 healthcare providers (200 physicians, 100 pharmacists, and 100 nurse practitioners/advanced practice nurses and physician assistants) regarding their opinions and preferences on the structure, content, layout, and delivery options of SRDs. The survey also included questions assessing where HCPs access their medical information, their trust in the medical information they receive from MI Departments, and alternative methods for receiving medical information.

Results: HCPs often self-search for medical information via an electronic device, which allows for SRDs to serve as a key resource. HCPs, who had prior contact with a pharmaceutical company's MI department, have a high degree of trust in the SRDs that they had received. However, perception of bias can have an impact on their level of trust. HCPs prefer all relevant data such as real-world evidence, adverse drug reactions, and clinical trial data, while abstracts and data on file may not be needed, but the overall length should only be three to five pages. HCPs find value in various SRD formatting characteristics, such as charts, tables, and infographics.

Conclusions: Overall, HCPs seek medical information resources, such as SRDs, to aid in the delivery of personalized patient care. HCPs prefer SRDs to be concise, but include comprehensive, unbiased medical information. Through HCP feedback, MI Departments of pharmaceutical companies can continue to develop and update their SRDs to increase uptake and potentially impact clinical practice.