Search

BackgroundWebsites of many rogue sellers of medications are accessible through links in email spam messages or via web search engines. This study examined how well students enrolled in a U.S. higher education institution could identify clearly unsafe pharmacies. ObjectiveThe aim is to estimate these health consumers´ vulnerability to fraud by illegitimate Internet pharmacies. MethodsTwo Internet pharmacy websites, created specifically for this study, displayed multiple untrustworthy features modeled after five actual Internet drug sellers which the authors considered to be potentially dangerous to consumers. The websites had none of the safe pharmacy signs and nearly all of the danger signs specified in the Food and Drug Administration´s (FDA´s) guide to consumers. Participants were told that a neighborhood pharmacy charged US$165 for a one-month supply of Beozine, a bogus drug to ensure no pre-existing knowledge. After checking its price at two Internet pharmacies—$37.99 in pharmacy A and $57.60 in pharmacy B—the respondents were asked to indicate if each seller was a good place to buy the drug. Responses came from 1,914 undergraduate students who completed an online eHealth literacy assessment in 2005-2008. Participation rate was 78%. ResultsIn response to "On a scale from 0-10, how good is this pharmacy as a place for buying Beozine?" many respondents gave favorable ratings. Specifically, 50% of students who reviewed pharmacy A and 37% of students who reviewed pharmacy B chose a rating above the scale midpoint. When explaining a low drug cost, these raters related it to low operation costs, ad revenue, pressure to lower costs due to comparison shopping, and/or high sales volume. Those who said that pharmacy A or B was "a very bad place" for purchasing the drug (25%), as defined by a score of 1 or less, related low drug cost to lack of regulation, low drug quality, and/or customer information sales. About 16% of students thought that people should be advised to buy cheaper drugs at pharmacies such as these but the majority (62%) suggested that people should be warned against buying drugs from such internet sellers. Over 22% of respondents would recommend pharmacy A to friends and family (10% pharmacy B). One-third of participants supplied online health information to others for decision-making purposes. After controlling for the effects of education, health major, and age, these respondents had significantly worse judgment of Internet pharmacies than those who did not act as information suppliers. ConclusionsAt least a quarter of students, including those in health programs, cannot see multiple signs of danger displayed by rogue Internet pharmacies. Many more are likely to be misled by online sellers that use professional design, veil untrustworthy features, and mimic reputable websites. Online health information consumers would benefit from education initiatives that (1) communicate why it can be dangerous to buy medications online and that (2) develop their information evaluation skills. This study highlights the importance of regulating rogue Internet pharmacies and curbing the danger they pose to consumers.

Purpose: The implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) has been extensively studied, but their maintenance once implemented has not. The Regional Extension Center (REC) program provides implementation assistance to priority practices-those with limited financial, technical, and organizational resources-but the assistance is time limited. Our objective was to identify potential barriers to maintenance of meaningful use of EHRs in priority primary care practices using a qualitative observational study for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and priority practices in Michigan.Methods: We conducted cognitive task analysis (CTA) interviews and direct observations of health information technology implementation in FQHCs. In addition, we conducted semistructured interviews with implementation specialists serving priority practices to detect emergent themes relevant to maintenance.Results: Maintaining EHR technology will require ongoing expert technical support indefinitely beyond implementation to address upgrades and security needs. Maintaining meaningful use for quality improvement will require ongoing support for leadership and change management. Priority practices not associated with larger systems lack access to the necessary technical expertise, financial resources, and leverage with vendors to continue alone. Rural priority practices are particularly challenged, because expertise is often not available locally.Conclusions: Priority practices, especially in rural areas, are at high risk for falling on the wrong side of a "digital divide" as payers and regulators enact increasing expectations for EHR use and information management. For those without affiliation to maintain the necessary expert staff, ongoing support will be needed for those practices to remain viable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary care practices have been limited in their ability to leverage electronic health records (EHRs) and health information exchange (HIE) to improve care coordination, but will soon be incentivized to do so under proposed Stage 3 meaningful use criteria. We use mixed methods to understand how primary care practices manage, share and reconcile electronic patient information across care settings, and identify innovations in EHR design to support enhanced care coordination. Opportunities identified by practices focused on availability and usability of features that facilitate (1) generation of customized summary of care records, (2) team-based care approaches, and (3) management of the increased volume of electronic information generated and exchanged during care transitions. More broadly, vendors and policymakers need to continue to work together to improve interoperability as the key to effective care coordination. If these EHR innovations were widespread, the value of meeting the proposed Stage 3 care coordination criteria would be substantially enhanced.