Library and Informatics Training May Improve Question Formulation among Public Health Practitioners
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A review of: Eldredge, Jonathan D., et al. “The Effect of Training on Question Formulation among Public Health Practitioners: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 96.4 (2008): 299-309. 28 Aug 2009 . Objectives – To determine whether providing library and informatics training to public health professionals would increase the number and sophistication of work-related questions asked by these workers. Design – Randomised controlled trial. Setting – New Mexico Department of Health. Subjects – Public health professionals from a variety of professions, including administrators, nursing professionals, nutritionists, epidemiologists, physicians, social workers, and others. Methods – All subjects received a three-hour training session on finding evidence-based public health information, with a focus on using PubMed. Two sessions were offered, two weeks apart. Participants were randomised to either an intervention group, which received instruction on the first date, or a control group, which received instruction on the second date. The intervening two weeks constitute the study period, in which both groups were surveyed by e-mail about their work-related question generation. Three times per week, subjects received e-mail reminders asking them to submit survey responses regarding all questions that had arisen in their practice, along with information about their attempts to answer them. Questions were tallied, and totals were compared between the two groups. Questions were also analysed for level of sophistication, and classified by the investigators as “background” questions, which are asked when one has little knowledge of the field, and can usually be answered using textbooks or other reference sources; and “foreground” questions, which are often asked when an individual is familiar with the subject, and looking for more sophisticated information that is usually found in journals and similar sources. This scheme for classifying questions was developed by Richardson and Mulrow (2001). Main Results The investigators found differences in both the number and sophistication of the questions asked between the control and intervention groups. The control group averaged only 0.69 questions per participant during the two-week observation period, while the intervention group averaged 1.24 questions. Investigators also found that a higher percentage of the questions asked by the intervention group were foreground questions (50.0%, versus 42.9%) for the control group. However, when two-tailed t-test analysis was performed on both the frequency of questions and the level of sophistication, the findings were no statistically significant within a 95% confidence interval. Conclusion This study suggests that library and informatics training for public health professionals may increase the number of questions that they ask on work-related topics, and also the sophistication of these questions. However, more studies need to be done to confirm these findings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,060 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».