Information Seeking When Problem Solving: Perspectives of Public Health Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Given the many different types of professionals working in public health and their diverse roles, it is likely that their information needs, information-seeking behaviors, and problem-solving abilities differ. Although public health professionals often work in interdisciplinary teams, few studies have explored their information needs and behaviors within the context of teamwork. This study explored the relationship between Canadian public health professionals' perceptions of their problem-solving abilities and their information-seeking behaviors with a specific focus on the use of evidence in practice settings. It also explored their perceptions of collaborative information seeking and the work contexts in which they sought information. METHODS: Key Canadian contacts at public health organizations helped recruit study participants through their list-servs. An electronic survey was used to gather data about (a) individual information-seeking behaviors, (b) collaborative information-seeking behaviors, (c) use of evidence in practice environments, (d) perceived problem-solving abilities, and (e) demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Fifty-eight public health professionals were recruited, with different roles and representing most Canadian provinces and one territory. A significant relationship was found between perceived problem-solving abilities and collaborative information-seeking behavior (r = -.44, p < .00, N = 58), but not individual information seeking. The results suggested that when public health professionals take a shared, active approach to problem solving, maintain personal control, and have confidence, they are more likely collaborate with others in seeking information to complete a work task. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Administrators of public health organizations should promote collaboration by implementing effective communication and information-seeking strategies, and by providing information resources and retrieval tools. Public health professionals' perceived problem-solving abilities can influence how they collaborate in seeking information. Educators in public health organizations should tailor training in information searching to promote collaboration through collaborative technology systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".