After exclusion of traditional health professionals (i.e. physicians, nurses, pharmacists, allied health) in the health professionals and other category, pharmaceutical industry representatives received rankings for second or third for frequency of use, usefulness, accessibility, credibility, and current/timeliness, based on means and number of respondents using this resource (data not shown).
The CPS and pharmacists were also ranked as the top two resources overall in terms of usefulness, accessibility, credibility, and current/timeliness for physicians.
Following academic detailing, physician and NP rankings of pharmaceutical industry representatives were second or third for frequency of use, usefulness, accessibility, credibility, and current/timeliness.
Analysis of respondent ratings for all resources in the categories print, health professionals and other, and online/electronic resources, indicated that the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties and pharmacists ranked highly for frequency of use, usefulness, accessibility, credibility, and current/timeliness by both groups of practitioners.
Ranks based on the % of the sample using the reference and individual ranks for mean scores were assigned within the groups used frequently, usefulness, accessibility, credibility, and current/timeliness for all resources regardless of their category (i.e. print, online/electronic, health professionals or other).
Resource ratings were based on the frequency of usage, usefulness, accessibility, credibility, and current/timeliness.
Fig. 12 Students & Professionals responses for Usefulness.
Fig. 11 Post-test responses for Usefulness.
With that in mind, I decided to rate each of the eight stages for usefulness.
The outcomes of this study are a good example of the usefulness of accessibility analysis on the prioritization of investment needs.
