Diagnoses, Drugs, and Treatment Are the Main Information Needs of Primary Care Physicians and Nurses, and the Internet Is the Information Source Most Commonly Used to Meet These Needs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Clarke, M. A., Belden, J. L., Koopman, R. J., Steege, L. M., Moore, J. L., Canfield, S. M., & Kim, M. S. (2013). Information needs and information-seeking behaviour analysis of primary care physicians and nurses: A literature review. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 30(3), 178-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hir.12036 Abstract Objective – To improve information support services to health practitioners making clinical decisions by reviewing the literature on the information needs and information seeking behaviours of primary care physicians and nurses. Within this larger objective, specific questions were 1) information sources used; 2) differences between the two groups; and 3) barriers to searching for both groups. Design – Literature review. Setting – SCOPUS, CINAHL, OVID Medline, and PubMed databases. Subjects – Results from structured searches in four bibliographic databases on the information needs of primary care physicians and nurses. Methods – Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) and keyword search strategies tailored to each of four databases were employed to retrieve items pertinent to research objectives. Concepts represented in either controlled or natural language vocabularies included “information seeking behaviour, primary health care, primary care physicians and nurses” (p. 180). An initial yield of 1169 items was filtered by language (English only), pertinence to study objectives, publication dates (2000-2012), and study participant age (>18). After filtering, 47 articles were examined and summarized, and recommendations for further research were made. Main Results – Few topical differences in information needed were identified between primary care physicians and nurses. Across studies retrieved, members of both groups sought information on drugs, diagnoses, and therapy. The Internet (including bibliographic databases and web-based searching) was the source of information most frequently mentioned, followed by textbooks, journals, colleagues, drug compendiums, professional websites, and medical libraries. There is insufficient evidence to support conclusions about the differences between groups. In most research, information needs and behaviours for both groups have been discussed simultaneously, with no real distinction made, suggesting that there may not be significant differences even though a few studies have found that nurses’ emphasis is on policy and procedures. Barriers to access include time, searching skills, and geographic location; for the last, improvements have been made but rural practitioners continue to be adversely affected by limited access to people and resources. Conclusion – Both primary care physicians and nurses seek information on diagnosis and treatment. The Internet is of increasing utility for both groups, but all resources have advantages and disadvantages in identifying evidence based information for use in practice. Further research is required to support access and use of evidence based resources, and to explore how focused, evidence based information can be integrated into electronic health record systems.
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 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 ».