Purpose: Mobile health (mHealth) solutions have become an inevitable element of the healthcare landscape. The recommendation and use of mHealth is important, but it is often underutilised. This study was conducted in England. It aimed to determine the use and recommendation of mHealth apps by pharmacists, the public’s perceptions of mHealth apps in general, and the awareness and use of health apps by diabetic patients in particular. Methods: The study used a mixed research approach, utilising a sequence of survey-based questionnaires with pharmacists and the general public, followed by semi-structured interviews with diabetic patients. Results: Pharmacists’ questionnaires revealed that 56% of the respondents were aware of health apps, 60% of which recommended them to patients. Over 76% of the individuals owned a smartphone. The types of applications that saw the most use from the general public were health and lifestyle apps (24%), social apps (19%), followed by news (18%). Although eight out of nine diabetic patients owned a smartphone, only three used diabetes apps. Diabetic patients also suggested an interest in using diabetes apps to aid in optimising care via the utilisation of visual aids, reminders, recording patient data, social coaching, and remote collaboration with healthcare professionals (HCPs), but time was seen as the biggest obstacle to using a diabetes mHealth application. Conclusion: Despite the growing number of mHealth apps, the level of awareness and usability of such apps by patients and pharmacists was still relatively low. Nevertheless, the majority who used health apps found them to be beneficial, and the public agreed that it helped them to live a healthier lifestyle. Therefore, health apps have great potential in health promotion. Pharmacists are ideally placed to promote them and make patients more aware of them. To increase the use of these apps, it is necessary to first increase awareness and knowledge of these apps, both to the public and to healthcare professionals.

Introduction: Advances in information and communication technology (ICT) and post-COVID-19 tectonic changes in healthcare delivery have made it possible for cancer survivors to obtain disease-related information for remote management online rather than through healthcare providers. To comprehend and evaluate health information, digital literacy is crucial. Objectives: This study examined cancer survivors’ information-seeking behaviour, information sources, digital health literacy, and digital trends, as well as potential determinants of e-health information receptivity and online resource use. Methods: A national 30-item cross-sectional survey using a representative random sample of cancer survivors from Jordan’s cancer registry was conducted. Chi-square tests established categorical variable relationships. Using the mean and standard deviation, we calculated the Likert scale’s ordinal data average. A p-value < 0.05 was statistically significant. Logistic regression identified predictors of interest in late-trajectory information acquisition and use of e-health platforms (apps, portals) for cancer self-management. Results: Lower digital literacy and electronic searching were associated with older age and lower income, education, and employment status (p ≤ 0.001). Digital literacy independently predicted m-health app use for remote management and interest in cancer supportive care information. Digitally literate survivors preferred the use of digital platforms (p ≤ 0.001). Information acquisition barriers included “reliability” (26%, n = 25) and “health information trustworthiness” (16.2%, n = 25). Following treatment completion, Internet-seeking behaviour decreased significantly when compared to the early cancer trajectory. Conclusion: Our findings imply that Jordanian cancer survivors’ low digital literacy may hinder information acquisition and technology-enabled cancer care. Digital interventions for cancer survivors should be adaptable to varying levels of digital health literacy. Healthcare policymakers should recognise digital inequities and devise focused initiatives to bridge the digital divide while responding to the urgent need to digitalise cancer care delivery.

Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Antibiotic resistance (AR) continues to be a serious problem. Many factors contribute to AR, including inappropriate use of antibiotics, in which both healthcare professionals and patients play a contributing role. This study aimed to assess the awareness and knowledge of antibiotic usage and AR among the general public (in affluent and deprived areas) and community pharmacists’ (CPs’) in Greater London. A cross-sectional survey involving members of the public was conducted between July 2014 and February 2015. Stage one involved members of the public (N = 384) residing in affluent areas of London. The second stage targeted public (N = 384) in deprived areas of London. In addition, CPs (N = 240) across the same areas were also surveyed. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS Software packages. Response rate: 36% (n = 139/384) and 57% (n = 220/384) and 25% (n = 60/240) of public residing in affluent areas, deprived areas and of CPs respectively was achieved. Definitive trends in knowledge of how antibiotics work could not be drawn to distinguish between affluent and deprived areas. However, public respondents residing in affluent areas possessed better understanding of AR and prudent use of antibiotics, and this was statistically significant in both cases (p < 0.05). Exposure to an antibiotic campaign (32% in affluent areas, 17% in deprived areas) did not raise public respondents’ knowledge on AR and only partially raised their general knowledge on antibiotics usage. Only 20% of public residing in deprived areas received counselling from a CP, among them 74% had an antibiotic prescribed on at least one previous occasion. Those who received counselling displayed better knowledge about concordance/adherence with respect to antibiotic usage (p < 0.05) whereas exposure to an antibiotic campaign made no significant impact on knowledge about concordance/adherence. The study highlights that there has been no change in the status quo with respect to awareness of antibiotic usage and AR even after the implementation of several awareness campaigns in England. Those who benefited from CP counselling showed a significant better knowledge towards prudent antibiotic usage which stresses the importance of CPs’ counselling on antibiotic prescription.

Continuing Education (CE) or Continuing Professional Development (CPD) are used by pharmacists globally to maintain up-to-date knowledge and skills throughout their careers. The primary aim of this study was to identify the formats or models used by pharmacists for CE and CPD globally. The secondary aim was to identify preferences of pharmacists, in relation to the variety of formats or models used to fulfil mandatory requirements, in order to support future planning of lifelong learning events. A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Science covering a time period from 1995 until March 2018. Searches were conducted in English, with studies on undergraduate studies being excluded. Eighteen papers from an initial search of 4561 were included from 2004 to 2014. All studies focused on pharmacists. Three studies identified face-to-face learning as a preference, with six studies identifying a positive impact of interactive learning. All four identified studies focusing on online provision were linked to CE. One study highlighted the benefits of blended learning. Two studies identified concluded that no one size fits all. A clear structure of event was highlighted in three studies. Three studies highlighted the relevance of topics to practice, and two studies showed the need for opportunities to apply knowledge. Due to the variety of formats and no consistent model, no perfect model or activity has been identified. However, CPD showed increased practice outcomes versus CE. Although an increasing amount of technology is being utilized, face-to-face learning is still preferred. Interactive, multiple-format learning should be used where possible, to reflect preferences of different learners. There is a need for a structured approach to the planning and learning event itself to support CE and CPD.