A User Survey Finds That a Hospital Library Literature Search Service Has a Direct Impact on Patient Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Farrell, A., Mason, J. (2014). Evaluating the Impact of Literature Searching Services on Patient Care Through the Use of a Quick-Assessment Tool. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 35(3),116-123. doi: 10.5596/c14-030 Abstract Objective – To assess the impact of a library provided literature search service on patient care. Design – Multiple choice questionnaire survey. Setting – Hospital library. Subjects – 54 library users who had requested a literature search and indicated the primary purpose of their request was patient care. Methods – A multiple choice questionnaire survey was designed, building on previously published library impact surveys and best practice guidelines, with input from staff in the local research department. The survey was reviewed by library staff, researchers and prospective respondents and piloted. The survey was sent out with the answers to literature search requests and a small incentive was offered to those who completed the survey. The survey was followed up with reminders. Main results – The response rate was 57.5% (n=54/94). The most common staff groups requesting literature searches were physicians (33.3%), nurses (22.2%), therapists (16.7%), pharmacists (11.1%) and residents (7.4%). The majority stated that their questions had been answered (77.8%), while 18.5% indicated their questions had been partially answered, for reasons such as the answer leading to more questions, or parts of the question had not been addressed. Two (3.7%) of the respondents’ questions were not answered, either because no answer existed, or because the question didn’t contain enough detail. Of those who replied that their question had been answered, 64.3% judged the information to have had an immediate impact on patient treatment or management. Other uses of the information included refreshing memory, avoiding an adverse event, diagnosing a patient, or preventing a referral. The percentage of respondents judging there to be no immediate impact on patient care was 16.7%. The impact on diagnosis and treatment was further investigated in those who had said there had been an immediate impact, with 22.2% saying the information determined their choice of drug, 29.6% saying the information confirmed their choice of drug, while 18.5% stated the information changed their choice of drug. All respondents replied that they intended to use this information in the future, regardless of whether the information had an immediate impact, or if their question had been answered. Conclusion – The authors concluded that the survey results show hospital libraries can have an impact on patient care through a literature searching service. They also found that the library was answering its literature service users’ questions.
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 | 0,038 | 0,273 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,010 |
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 ».