Computerized Literature Searching in the Ambulatory Setting Using PaperChase®

PaperChase®, a self-service computerized literature search (SSCLS) service, was compared to conventional resources for accessing recent medical information by assessing user attitudes, search costs, and number of searches performed. The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial using survey instruments before and after the intervention. Accounting of PaperChase searches was monitored electronically, and costs of librarian searches were provided by the hospital library. Participants included 57 physicians in several specialties who were members of a group practice located in a suburban ambulatory care center. Responses were received from 67%. The experimental group received free, unlimited access to PaperChase over a one-year period, while the control group used conventional resources (manually self-performed searches and computerized MEDLINE searches performed free-of-charge by hospital librarians). The study disclosed no change in attitude of either those employing computers or SSCLS. Attitude scores in the experimental group showed statistically significant worsening in preference for SSCLS over textbook use and the estimation of SSCLS utility in the outpatient setting. The cost of PaperChase compared favorably to literature searches done by librarians. The self-reported numbers of literature searches of all types increased in the experimental group. PaperChase searches changed physicians\u27 perceptions of patient treatment and outcome in some cases. While computerized literature searches may have a role in the outpatient setting, other resources remain important. Although only certain physicians are interested in using this method, this study shows that PaperChase can be a cost-effective alternative to MEDLINE searches performed by hospital librarians

Examining California‘s SB 375‘s High Density Sustainable Communities Strategy and What it Means for Cities with their Own Low Density Strategies to Curb the Excesses of Growth: Separate Paths to a Better World?

In 2006, the State of California adopted a pioneering effort by a mere state to address global warming. The law was known in California as Assembly Bill 32. It sought to mandate that local governments in California reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Beyond 2020, the law required greater further reductions at specified milestones. The methods adopted to achieve these reductions were set forth in California Senate Bill 375 which, among other strategies, required regional governments in California to herd local governments into adopting an anti-sprawl approach to growth. That strategy is called the Sustainable Communities Strategy. It provides a series of incentives for compact, high density development. Many California local governments have adopted anti-growth measures over the years, but some seem completely incompatible with high density developments. This paper examines these differing urban planning strategies to visualize how these laws will interact and co-exist with each other in the near future. It does so by focusing upon one unique Northern California city, the City of Alameda, with grass-roots laws seeking to keep it in the past and forward looking regional planning efforts [crafted by the Bay Area\u27s Metropolitan Planning Agencies, i.e. the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MTC)] seeking to thrust it into the future

Relational Misperceptions in the Workplace: New Frontiers and Challenges

Understanding the social landscape at work helps employees accomplish organizational goals. A growing body of evidence, however, suggests that people are fallible perceivers of their work relationships. People do not always know how much others trust (or distrust) them, consider them a friend (or enemy), or rely on them for advice or information at work. Such relational misperceptions may be especially likely in the context of work organizations. Here, we develop theoretical accounts to explain how and why employees misinterpret the nature of their relationships with others at work—and what consequences ensue when they do. We direct attention to five key opportunities for future research on when and why relational misperceptions occur and matter in organizations. Building on the small body of organizational research and larger body of nonorganizational research on relationship misperception, we also identify areas that may be fruitful for exploration, highlighting several topics in the organizational literature that could be enlivened by considering the role of relational misperceptions. For example, we consider how employees’ relational misperceptions may affect how influential they are at work, how effectively they lead others, and how they navigate the social landscape in organizations