The Effect of Risk Attitude and Uncertainty Comfort on Primary Care Physicians' Use of Electronic Information Resources

Background: Clinicians use information regularly in clinical care. New electronic information resources provided in push, pull, and prompting formats have potential to improve information support but have not been designed for individualization. Physicians with differing risk status use healthcare resources differently often without an improvement in outcomes.Questions: Do physicians who are risk seeking or risk avoiding and comfortable or uncomfortable with uncertainty use or prefer electronic information resources differently when answering simulated clinical questions and can the processes be modeled with existing theoretical models?Design: Cohort study.Methods: Primary care physicians in Canada and the United States were screened for risk status. Those with high and low scores on 2 validated scales answered 23 multiple-choice questions and searched for information using their own electronic resources for 2 of these questions. They also answered 2 other questions using information from 2 electronic information sources: PIER© and Clinical Evidence© .Results: The physicians did not differ for number of correct answers according to risk status although the number of correct answers was low and not substantially higher than chance. Their searching process was consistent with 2 information-seeking models from information science (modified Wilson Problem Solving and Card/Pirolli Information Foraging/Information Scent models). Few differences were seen for any electronic searching or information use outcome based on risk status although those physicians who were comfortable with uncertainty used more searching heuristics and spent less effort on direct searching. More than 20% of answers were changed after searching—almost the same number going from incorrect to correct and from correct to incorrect. These changes from a correct to incorrect answer indicate that some electronic information resources may not be ideal for direct clinical care or integration into electronic medical record systems.Conclusions: Risk status may not be a major factor in the design of electronic information resources for primary care physicians. More research needs to be done to determine which computerized information resources and which features of these resources are associated with obtaining and maintaining correct answers to clinical questions

What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals?

BACKGROUND: We conducted this analysis to determine i) which journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant studies in internal medicine, general/family practice, general practice nursing, and mental health; and ii) the proportion of clinically relevant articles in each journal. METHODS: We performed an analytic survey of a hand search of 170 general medicine, general healthcare, and specialty journals for 2000. Research staff assessed individual articles by using explicit criteria for scientific merit for healthcare application. Practitioners assessed the clinical importance of these articles. Outcome measures were the number of high-quality, clinically relevant studies published in the 170 journal titles and how many of these were published in each of four discipline-specific, secondary "evidence-based" journals (ACP Journal Club for internal medicine and its subspecialties; Evidence-Based Medicine for general/family practice; Evidence-Based Nursing for general practice nursing; and Evidence-Based Mental Health for all aspects of mental health). Original studies and review articles were classified for purpose: therapy and prevention, screening and diagnosis, prognosis, etiology and harm, economics and cost, clinical prediction guides, and qualitative studies. RESULTS: We evaluated 60,352 articles from 170 journal titles. The pass criteria of high-quality methods and clinically relevant material were met by 3059 original articles and 1073 review articles. For ACP Journal Club (internal medicine), four titles supplied 56.5% of the articles and 27 titles supplied the other 43.5%. For Evidence-Based Medicine (general/family practice), five titles supplied 50.7% of the articles and 40 titles supplied the remaining 49.3%. For Evidence-Based Nursing (general practice nursing), seven titles supplied 51.0% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 49.0%. For Evidence-Based Mental Health (mental health), nine titles supplied 53.2% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 46.8%. For the disciplines of internal medicine, general/family practice, and mental health (but not general practice nursing), the number of clinically important articles was correlated withScience Citation Index (SCI) Impact Factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although many clinical journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant and important original studies and systematic reviews, the articles for each discipline studied were concentrated in a small subset of journals. This subset varied according to healthcare discipline; however, many of the important articles for all disciplines in this study were published in broad-based healthcare journals rather than subspecialty or discipline-specific journals

iii THE EFFECT OF RISK ATTITUDE AND UNCERTAINTY COMFORT ON PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS ’ USE OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION RESOURCES

This dissertation was presented b

Limits of search filter development

Objective: The research attempted to develop search filters for biomedical literature databases that improve retrieval of studies of clinical relevance for the nursing and rehabilitation professions. Methods: Diagnostic testing framework compared machine-culled and practitioner-nominated search terms with a hand-tagged clinical literature database. Results: We were unable to: (1) develop filters for nursing, likely because of the overlapping and expanding scope of practice for nurses in comparison with medical professionals, or (2) develop filters for rehabilitation, because of its broad scope and the profession’s multifaceted understanding of ‘‘health and ability.’’ Conclusions: We found limitations on search filter development for these health professions: nursing and rehabilitation

Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies

A wide range of diverse and inconsistent terminology exists in the field of knowledge translation. This limits the conduct of evidence syntheses, impedes communication and collaboration, and undermines knowledge translation of research findings in diverse settings. Improving uniformity of terminology could help address these challenges. In 2012, we convened an international working group to explore the idea of developing a common terminology and an overarching framework for knowledge translation interventions

Age-Specific Search Strategies for Medline

BACKGROUND: Many clinicians and researchers are interested in patients of a specific age (childhood, geriatrics, and so on). Searching for age-specific publications in large bibliographic databases such as Medline is problematic because of inconsistencies in indexing, overlapping age categories, and the spread of the relevant literature over many journals. To our knowledge, no empirically tested age-specific search strategies exist for Medline. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the retrieval characteristics of age-specific terms in Medline for identifying studies relevant for five clinical specialties: adult medicine, geriatric medicine, pediatric medicine, neonatal medicine, and obstetrics. METHODS: We compared age-specific search terms and phrases for the retrieval of citations in Medline with a manual hand search of the literature for 161 core health care journals. Six experienced research assistants who were trained and intensively calibrated read all issues of 161 journals for the publishing year 2000. In addition to classifying all articles for purpose and quality, study participants' ages were also recorded. Outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy of single and combination search terms. RESULTS: When maximizing sensitivity, the best sensitivity and specificity achieved with combination terms were 98% and 81.2%, respectively, for pediatric medicine, 96.4% and 55.9% for geriatric medicine, 95.3% and 83.6% for neonatal medicine, 94.9% and 64.5% for adult medicine, and 82% and 97.1% for obstetrics. When specificity was maximized, all disciplines had an expected decrease in sensitivity and an increase in precision. Highest values for optimizing best sensitivity and specificity were achieved in neonatal medicine, 92.5% and 92.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Selected single terms and combinations of MeSH terms and textwords can reliably retrieve age-specific studies cited in Medline