MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1528706188 · doi:10.18438/b8r30m

Time, Cost, Information Seeking Skills and Format of Resources Present Barriers to Information Seeking by Primary Care Practitioners in a Research Environment

2007· article· en· W1528706188 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martha Ingrid Preddie

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Sciences Research and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInformation seekingPopulationFamily medicinePrimary careDescriptive statisticsQuality (philosophy)Information needsHealth careMedicineNursingSample (material)Medical educationPsychologyLibrary scienceComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objective – To determine the information seeking behaviors of primary care practitioners in order to inform future efforts towards the design of information services that would support quality in primary care.
 
 Design – A cross-sectional survey.
 
 Setting – A primary care practice based research network (PBRN) of caregivers who serve a broad population while simultaneously studying and disseminating innovations aimed at improvements in quality, efficiency and/or safety of primary health care in the United States. 
 
 Subjects – All primary care practitioners in the PBRN including family practitioners, general practitioners, nurse practitioners and physician assistants. 
 
 Methods – A questionnaire comprising twenty-six questions was distributed to 116 practitioners. Practitioners attached to academic centres (who were also members of the PBRN) were excluded in order “to achieve a sample of practices more representative of the primary care practising population” (208). Descriptive data were collected and analyzed. SPSS v11.5 was used for statistical analyses.
 
 Main results – There was a response rate of 51% (59 of 116). Fifty-eight percent of the respondents stated that they sought information (excluding drug dosing or drug interactions information) to support patient care several times a week. Sixty-eight per cent sought this information while the patient waited. Almost half of the respondents had access to a small medical library (48%) or a hospital library (46%), while 21% used a university medical library. Approximately 14% had no immediate access to a medical library. Almost 60% of practitioners stated that they had an e-mail account. Thirty-four percent agreed that the use of e-mail to communicate with patients enhanced medical practice, while 24% disagreed. There was frequent prescribing of Internet-based consumer health information to patients by only 16% of the practitioners, while Internet support groups were frequently recommended by 5%. The main barriers to information seeking were lack of time (76%), cost (33%), information seeking skills (25%), and format of information sources (22%). The use of EBM resources was fairly low, while there was a high preference for ready reference and interpersonal sources. When compared with print information resources, the use of online resources was moderate. A significant correlation was found between use of online sources and use of print sources, namely, that practitioners who used online sources more frequently, also sought information from print sources more frequently, with the inverse being true for those who sought information less frequently from either electronic or print sources.
 
 Conclusion – Primary care practitioners in this rural PBRN used print and interpersonal sources more than online sources. Practitioners who are more likely to use print sources are also more likely to seek online information. Librarians working in PBRN environments will need to identify interventions that address barriers such as time, cost, and information-seeking skills.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,709
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,794

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,217
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,404
Écart entre enseignants0,364 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetHealth Sciences Research and EducationTravaux en français237 207