Table 2.
Overview of papers included in review in alphabetical order.
| Author (Year) RQ |
Focus (What) | Study Characteristics (How, Where) |
|---|---|---|
| Adam and Vang (2015) [34] RQ2 |
Quantitative evaluation of DDI websites intended for patient use | - Evaluation of 44 DDI websites - Quantitative evaluation - United States |
| Bailey et al. (2014) [35] RQ2 |
Assessment of apps intended for patient self-management | - Quantitative assessment of 424 apps in total, of which 12 included the DDI feature - United States |
| Dohle et al. (2017) [43] RQ1 |
Testing if providing individuals with information about a drug combination that presents a synergistic risk increase perception and influence dosing decisions |
- Two experiments where patients were presented with scenarios providing different information about DDI - Adult participants (n = 565) - United States |
| Gustafsson et al. (2017) [44] RQ1 |
Evaluation of how well patients recognize and comprehend PIL, including information about DDIs, as well as reasons for poor comprehensibility | - PILs for 30 commonly prescribed medicines - PILs evaluated by experts using a protocol and patients using a questionnaire - Sweden |
| Haverhals et al. (2011) [45] RQ1 |
Elucidation of the medication self-management needs and strategies of older adults with multi-morbidity and their adult caregivers that can be addressed by an electronic personal health application | - Semi-structured interviews, individually and in exploratory/confirmatory focus groups - Purposive sample of 32 adult patients and 2 adult family caregivers - United States |
| Herber et al. (2014) [46] RQ1 |
Exploration of patients’ reactions and behavior towards risk information in PILs of commonly prescribed drugs by general practitioners | - Focus groups - Patients in general practitioners’ practices - Six focus groups with 35 patients - Germany |
| Heringa et al. (2018a) [47] RQ1 |
Exploration of aspects influencing patients’ preferences regarding DDI management | - Focus groups: patients in 5 different community pharmacies - Total of 38 participants, who have used cardiovascular drugs for over 1 year, distributed in five focus groups - Netherlands |
| Heringa et al. (2018b) [48] RQ1 |
Exploration of patients’ and pharmacists’ preferences regarding DDI management | - On-line questionnaires: choice-based conjoint task on a fictitious DDI - 178 pharmacists and 298 patients - Patients were older than 40 years, and all used cardiovascular drugs - Netherlands |
| Indermitte et al. (2007) [49] RQ1 |
Assessing prevalence and patient awareness of selected potential DDIs with self-medication | - Observation of 1183 pharmacy customers - Interview with 536 pharmacy customers - 14 community pharmacies - Switzerland |
| Justad et al. (2021) [50] RQ1 and RQ2 |
Evaluation of why and how patients use an online DDI service, how they perceive content and usability, and how they declare they would react if they found an interaction | - A web-based questionnaire among users who had registered as a “patient” (n = 406, response rate 12.6%) for a DDI service aimed at professionals - Sweden |
| Khodambashi et al. (2017) [51] RQ1 and RQ2 |
A comparative assessment of a prototype tool developed and evaluated for DDI | - A comparative mixed-methods evaluation between a developed prototype and PILs - Evaluation with 13 participants - Prototype co-designed with patients and pharmacists - Norway |
| Kim et al. (2018) [36] RQ2 |
Assessment of mHealth apps for DDIs found on App Store and Google Play aimed at Canadian citizens | - Quantitative assessment of 23 mHealth apps for information comprehensiveness and accuracy of DDI - Canada |
| Kusch et al. * (2018) [22] RQ1 |
Scoping review study that: - Describes drug information desired by patients - Analyzes how drug information can be customized to meet the patient’s individual needs |
- 12 studies of patient enquiries to drug information hotlines and services - 15 qualitative studies evaluating drug information needs - Several countries |
| Martin-Hammond et al. (2015) [52] RQ2 |
Iterative design and evaluation of a prototype for OTC medication for patients, which among many features, includes a DDI service | - Design and evaluation of a prototype using two experts and seven elderly users - Qualitative study - United States |
| Mutebi et al. (2013) [53] RQ1 |
Assessment of patients’ information needs and preferences about potential DDIs, in order to inform patient DDI education resources | - On-line questionnaire - Sample of 100 registered users of an online medication monitoring service - United States |
| Shiguang Loy et al. (2016) [37] RQ2 |
Assessment of apps for DDI feature | - Quantitative assessment of 59 apps for DDI using a tool developed by authors - English apps without a geographically limited scope |
| Spanakis et al. (2016) [54] RQ2 |
Evaluation of a DDI tool developed for patient empowerment | - Quantitative evaluation of a DDI tool with 35 patients - Unspecified geographical scope |
| Spanakis et al. (2019) [55] RQ2 |
Evaluation and presentation of an eHealth platform including DDI checkers developed for patient empowerment | - Describing content of a platform and knowledge database - Pilot evaluation with 33 health professionals - Quantitative and qualitative evaluation - Greece |
| Vingen et al. (2020) [38] RQ2 |
Evaluation of usability issues that patients might face when using publicly available DDI checkers | - Mixed methods, heuristic expert evaluation - 6 websites evaluated on a mobile browser - Scandinavia |
* The individual papers included in the review by Kusch et al. was not included in the present scoping review. RQ = research question; RQ1 = papers relevant for research question 1; RQ2 = findings relevant for research question 2; DDI = drug–drug interaction; PIL = patient information leaflet.