Topic-specific Infobuttons Reduce Search Time but their Clinical Impact is Unclear
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Del Fiol, Guilherme, Peter J. Haug, James J. Cimino, Scott P. Narus, Chuck Norlin, and Joyce A. Mitchell. ‚Effectiveness of Topic-specific Infobuttons: A Randomized Controlled Trial.‛ Journal of the American Medical Information Association 15.6 (2008): 752-9. Objective – To assess whether infobutton links that direct users to specific content topics (‚topic links‛) are more effective in answering clinical questions than links that direct users to general overview content (‚nonspecific links‛). Design – Randomized control trial. Setting – Intermountain Healthcare, an integrated system of 21 hospitals and over 120 outpatient clinics located in Utah and southeastern Idaho. Subjects – Ninety clinicians and 3,729 infobutton sessions. Methods – To ensure comparable group composition, subjects were paired and randomly allocated to the study groups. Clinicians in the intervention group had access to topic links, while those in the control group had access to nonspecific links. All subjects at Intermountain Healthcare use a Web-based electronic medical record system (EMR) called HELP2 Clinical Desktop with integrated infobutton links. An Infobutton Manager application defines the content topics and resources; in this case, Micromedex® (Thomson Healthcare, Englewood, CO) provided access to the topic links. The medication order entry module, the most popular of the outpatient modules, was selected to test the two configurations of infobuttons. A focus group of seven HELP2 users aided the researchers in determining the most salient topics to be displayed as a part of the intervention group's user-interface. The study measured infobutton session duration, or time spent seeking information, the number of infobutton sessions conducted, and the outcome and impact of the information seeking. A post-session questionnaire displayed randomly in 30% of sessions measured outcome and impact. The study was conducted between May and November, 2007. This project was funded in part by the National Library of Medicine. Main Results – Subjects in the intervention group spent 17.4% less time seeking information than those in the control group (35.5 seconds vs. 43 seconds, p = 0.008). The intervention group used infobuttons 20.5% more often (22 sessions vs. 17.5 sessions, p = 0.21) than those in the control group, a difference that was not statistically significant. Twenty-five subjects answered the post-session survey at least once for a total of 115 (9.9%) responses out of 1,161 possible sessions. The information seeking success rate was equally high in both groups (87.2% intervention vs. 89.4% control, p = .099). Subjects reported high positive clinical impact (i.e., decision enhancement or learning) in 62% of successful sessions. Subjects conveyed a moderate or high level of frustration in 80% of responses associated with unsuccessful sessions. Conclusion – Topic links provide a slight advantage in the clinical decision-making process by reducing the amount of time spent searching. But while the session length difference between the control and intervention groups is statistically significant, it is less clear whether the difference is clinically meaningful. As previous studies have indicated, infobuttons are able to answer clinical medication questions with a high success rate. It is unclear whether topic links have a clinically significant impact, or rather, whether they are more effective than nonspecific links. The authors believe that the study results ‚should generalize to high-frequency, medication-related infobutton users in other institutions‛ (758).
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 | 0,004 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».