Prescribing a new treatment requires navigating a complex landscape of information. Recent data from an exclusive AusDoc survey “Information needs in prescribing a new treatment” highlights that while General Practitioners (GPs) and Specialists share many of the same top priorities —such as clinical trial evidence, treatment benefits and challenges, and prescribing details — their emphasis differs.

These insights provide a foundation for creating tailored resources and strategies to better support their unique prescribing needs.

Key Findings:

Total Information Priorities for all Doctors

An analysis of total responses reveals among 312 Australian qualified doctors, the top 10 information priorities shared by all doctors when prescribing a new treatment:

Key evidence from clinical trials on the treatment’s efficacy81%
Benefits and challenges versus current treatments75%
Prescribing information73%
A review of the treatment’s mode of action70%
Safety data, including adverse effects69%
Real-world effectiveness65%
Cost-effectiveness of the treatment62%
Peer opinions regarding the treatment32%
Patient group opinions on the treatment13%

These priorities reflect a balanced need for scientific, practical, and experiential information, underscoring the importance of delivering multifaceted resources to support prescribing decisions.

Differing Information Priorities: GPs vs Specialists

When presented with hypothetical new treatments, GPs and specialists emphasised similar top informational needs, though their prioritisation differed:

  • GPs prioritised prescribing information (83%), evidence from clinical trials (80%), and benefits versus challenges compared to current treatments (74%).
  • Specialists rated evidence from clinical trials (92%) as most important, followed by prescribing informationa (84%) and benefits versus challenges compared to current treatments (73%).
GPsSpecialists
Prescribing information83.0%84.1%
Key evidence from clinical trials on the treatment’s safety80.4%85.7%
Key evidence from clinical trials on the treatment’s efficacy76.3%92.1%
Treatment cost information74.2%66.7%
Benefits and challenges vs current treatments73.7%73.0%

This alignment in key needs, with varying emphasis, underscores the importance of tailoring communication strategies to each group’s clinical focus.

For pharmaceutical companies, this means developing dynamic resources that can adapt to different prescribing contexts, such as detailed scientific reviews for specialists and simplified, actionable guidelines for GPs. Healthcare organisations could leverage these insights to design education and training programs that bridge these emphasis gaps, fostering a unified understanding of new treatments.

Comparative Analysis of Current and New Treatments

Both groups sought comparative insights, though specialists showed a stronger interest in the treatment’s mode of action and long-term benefits. GPs focused more on practical prescribing guidelines, such as dosage, safety and administration.

Influence of Peer and Patient Opinions

  • Peer opinions were significant for both groups but more pronounced among specialists (38%).
  • Patient perspectives were less emphasized overall but still noted by 12% of GPs and 14% of specialists.

This suggests a growing awareness of shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Recommendations for Improving Engagement

1. Enhanced Clinical Resources

Providing resources that consolidate trial data, prescribing guidelines, and treatment comparisons can bridge information gaps for GPs. These resources could be implemented through user-friendly digital platforms, such as interactive web portals or mobile apps, allowing easy access to up-to-date information.

Additionally, embedding such resources into electronic health record systems could streamline their integration into daily workflows. This approach has the potential to enhance clinical outcomes by enabling GPs to make more informed and timely prescribing decisions, ultimately improving patient care.

2. Customising Communication

Pharmaceutical companies should adopt a segmented approach:

  • Develop concise, user-friendly prescribing tools for GPs.
  • Offer in-depth scientific reviews and peer discussions for specialists.

3. Facilitating Peer-to-Peer Knowledge Sharing

Platforms that enable real-time sharing of clinical experiences could foster trust and accelerate adoption of new treatments. Examples include dedicated forums for healthcare professionals, secure messaging systems integrated into electronic health records, and collaborative networks like virtual case discussion platforms. These platforms could be tailored to include features such as searchable case studies for GPs and advanced clinical trial discussions for specialists, ensuring relevance and usability for both groups.

Conclusion

Understanding the unique needs of GPs and specialists is pivotal for fostering better prescribing practices. By tailoring resources and engagement strategies, stakeholders can support informed decisions, ultimately improving patient care outcomes.


References

AusDoc survey “Information needs in prescribing a new treatment” of 312 Australian qualified doctors, including GPs (n = 205) and specialists (n = 67), conducted in November 2024.

This article was written with the assistance of AI.