The National Library of Medicine (NLM) began in 1836 as a small collection of books in the office of the Army Surgeon General. Today, the NLM is the world's largest medical library, providing access to its vast collection of seven million items onsite and through the World Wide Web. Historical interest in drug information dates to 1967, when Congress provided funds for a Drug Literature Program at the NLM. Drug information is now dispersed among a number of NLM bibliographic and factual databases that offer an array of clinical, research, and toxicological drug data. Target audiences for drug information include consumers, patients, healthcare practitioners, clinical researchers, and scientists. Drug development and medical publishing have both accelerated to such an extent that it is virtually impossible for healthcare practitioners and researchers to keep apprised of current information. Due to wide utilization for posting medically-related data, the Internet is discussed in terms of its impact on medical library responsibilities, drug information and efforts to evaluate Web-based health information, and how resultant imperatives indicate a need to create new drug-related databases including an Internet portal to drug information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
F-D-C Reports. Health Web site ethics seal of approval under development. The Tan Sheet.2001; 9(1);15.
2.
PSL Group. Special report: i-MD 2000..
3.
News Release. 2002 AMA Study on Physicians’ Use of the World Wide Web.Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; July 17, 2002.
4.
FoxSFallowsD.Internet Health Resources. Health Searches and Email Have Become More Commonplace, but there is Still Room for Improvement in Searches and Overall Internet Access.Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; July 2003.
5.
BasefskySThe library as an agent of change: Pushing the client institution forward. Inf Outlook.1999;3:37–40.
6.
BrissonRThe world discovers cataloging: A conceptual introduction to digital libraries, metadata and the implications for library administrations. J Internet Catalog.1999;1(4):3–30.
7.
MarfleetJKellyCLeading the field: The role of the information professional in the next century. Electronic Libr.1999;17(6):359–364.
8.
LindbergDABHumphreysBLMedicine and health on the Internet. The good, the bad, and the ugly. JAMA.1998;280:1303–1304.
9.
National Library of Medicine, Board of Regents.Long range plan 2000–2005.Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health; 2000. Available at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/od/ohipd/nlm-lrp.pdf.
10.
RothschildJMLeeTHBaeTBatesDWClinician use of a palmtop drug reference guide. J Am Med Inf Assoc.2002;9:223–229.
11.
HatfieldCLMaySKMarkoffJSQuality of consumer drug information provided by four Web sites. Am J Health-Sys Pharm.1999;56:2308–2311.
12.
DoupiPvan der LeiJRx medication information for the public and the WWW: Quality issues. Med Inf Internet Med.1999;24:171–179.
13.
DetwilerS.The Medium Doesn't Get the Message: When Does Breaking Health News Become Permanent Information? A Report on the Currency of Drug Databases Associated With Health and Medical Websites.Fort Wayne, IN: The Detwiler Group; 2001.
14.
BerlandGKHealth information on the Internet: Accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA.2001;285:2612–2621.
15.
BichakjianCKMelanoma information on the Internet: Often incomplete—a public health opportunity?J Clin Oncol.2002;20:134–141.
16.
RozenM.The Hi-Ethics principles—industry self-regulation of content quality. Presented at the Internet Health Information Programs Conference, Drug Information Association and Duke (University) Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, April 2–3, 2001.
17.
LuckyRThe quickening of science communication. Science.2000;289:259–264.
18.
WoodMS, ed. Health Care Resources on the Internet. A Guide for Librarians and Health Care Consumers.New York, NY: Haworth Information Press; 2000.
19.
Anon. The challenge of the Internet. Drug Ther Bull.1999;37(4):29–30.
20.
PankaskieMSullivanJMedical information on the Internet: Fool's gold or 24 karat?J Am Pharm Assoc.1998;38:237.
21.
JadadARGagliardiARating health information on the Internet. Navigating to knowledge or Babel?JAMA.1998;279:611–614.
22.
SilbergWMLundbergGDMusacchioRAAssessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveat lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA.1997;277(15):1244–1245.
23.
RiskADzenowagisJReview of Internet health information quality initiatives. J Med Internet Res.2001;3(4):e28.
KimPEngTRDeeringMJMaxfieldAPublished criteria for evaluating health related web sites: Review. BMJ.1999;318:647–649.
30.
EysenbachGPowellJKussOSaE-REmpirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: A systematic review. JAMA.2002;287:2691–2700.
31.
RiskAPetersenCHealth information on the Internet: Quality issues and international initiatives. JAMA.2002;287:2713–2715. Editorial.
32.
National Academy of Sciences.“Symposium on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain.”Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences; September 5–6, 2002.
33.
KnobenJE“NLM and Drug Information.” Presented at the DIA 13th Annual Medical Communications Symposium, Tampa, FL, March 17–20, 2002, and the DIA 38th Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, June 16–20, 2002.
34.
SnowB.Drug information. A Guide to Current Resources.2nd ed. Medical Library Association, Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press; 1999: 125.
35.
HammondWEThe Future of the Healthcare Internet. Presented at the Internet Health Programs Conference. Drug Information Association and Duke (University) Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, April 2–3, 2001.
