Introducing professional drug information resources to non-healthcare undergraduates: a case report on promoting drug information literacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2165Keywords:
drug information databases, non-healthcare students, health literacy, Evidence based practice, 'Health professionals'Abstract
Background: Non-healthcare undergraduate students frequently seek drug-related information online, often relying on unverified sources such as Google or YouTube. Early exposure to professional drug information databases may promote evidence-based information-seeking habits.
Case Presentation: A one-hour training session on using Lexicomp, a professional drug information database, was conducted for 55 non-healthcare students and 58 pharmacy students at a women’s university in South Korea. The session included live demonstrations and guided search tasks. Participants completed pre- and post-training surveys assessing their information-seeking behaviors, perceptions of source reliability, and intention to use Lexicomp. Students also ranked drug information types they typically searched for and anticipated using Lexicomp to find. Only 1.8% of non-healthcare students had prior knowledge of Lexicomp, compared to 100% of pharmacy students. After the training, 100% of non-healthcare students rated Lexicomp as more reliable than their usual sources, and over 90% expressed willingness to use it in the future. A marked shift in information-seeking priorities was observed, with greater emphasis on clinically relevant topics such as adverse effects and contraindications. Students reported increased confidence and found the platform easier to use than expected.
Conclusion: A brief educational intervention was effective in improving drug information literacy among non-healthcare students. Early training in professional resources may foster long-term adoption of evidence-based practices in personal health information use.
References
1. Jia X, Pang Y, Liu LS. Online Health Information Seeking Behavior: A Systematic Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(12):1740. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9121740.
2. Borges do Nascimento IJ, Pizarro AB, Almeida JM, Azzopardi-Muscat N, Gonçalves MA, Björklund M, Novillo-Ortiz D. Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews. Bull World Health Organ. 2022;100(9):544-561. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.21.287654.
3. Gilson A, Safranek CW, Huang T, Socrates V, Chi L, Taylor RA, Chartash D. How Does ChatGPT Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9:e45312. DOI: 10.2196/45312.
4. Huang C, Chen L, Huang H, Cai Q, Lin R, Wu X, Zhuang Y, Jiang Z. Evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses to diabetes questions and misconceptions. J Transl Med. 2023;21(1):502. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-023-04354-6.
5. Liu J, Wang C, Liu S. Utility of ChatGPT in Clinical Practice. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e48568. DOI: 10.2196/48568.
6. Blease C, Torous J, McMillan B, Hägglund M, Mandl KD. Generative Language Models and Open Notes: Exploring the Promise and Limitations. JMIR Med Educ. 2024;10:e51183. DOI: 10.2196/51183.
7. Suárez-Lledó V, Álvarez-Gálvez J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(1):e17187. DOI: 10.2196/17187.
8. Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:382. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03446-z.
9. Yasseri T, Reher J. Fooled by facts: quantifying anchoring bias through a large-scale experiment. J Comput Soc Sc. 2022;5:1001–1021. DOI: 10.1007/s42001-021-00158-0
10. Korteling JEH, Paradies GL, Sassen-van Meer JP. Cognitive bias and how to improve sustainable decision making. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1129835. DOI:1.3389/fpsyg.2023.1129835
11. Prabha C, Connaway LS, Olszewski L, Jenkins LR. What is enough? Satisficing information needs. Journal of Documentation. 2007;63(1):74-89. DOI: 10.1108/00220410710723894.
12. Leixiao Z, Xiaonan S, Lutong P, Wenjing G, Chang X, Jingqi T, Wenting D, Xiuqin K, Yibo W. Development and reliability and validity testing of a medication literacy scale for medical college students. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1238. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-06222-3.
13. King SB, Lapidus M. Metropolis revisited: the evolving role of librarians in informatics education for the health professions. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Jan;103(1):14-8. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.1.003.
14. Wilson V. Academic Librarians Have Concerns about Their Role as Teachers. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2008;3(3): 73-5. DOI: 10.18438/B82K6H.
15. Subramaniam M, St Jean B, Taylor NG, Kodama C, Follman R, Casciotti D. Bit by bit: using design-based research to improve the health literacy of adolescents. JMIR Res Protoc. 2015;4(2):e62. DOI: 10.2196/resprot.4058.
16. Ghaddar SF, Valerio MA, Garcia CM, Hansen L. Adolescent health literacy: the importance of credible sources for online health information. J Sch Health. 2012;82(1):28-36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00664.x.
17. Gashaw T, Yadeta TA, Weldegebreal F, Demissie L, Jambo A, Assefa N. The global prevalence of antibiotic self-medication among the adult population: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2025;14(1):49. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-025-02783-6.
18. Gray NJ, Klein JD, Noyce PR, Sesselberg TS, Cantrill JA. Health information-seeking behaviour in adolescence: the place of the internet. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(7):1467-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.010.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hey Young Rhee, Kiyon Rhew
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
