바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

An Analysis of Physicians' Online Information Search Process at the Point of Care

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2016, v.33 no.3, pp.177-193
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.3.177


  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

This study aims to analyze physicians’ online information search process to solve the clinical questions at the point of care. To achieve this purpose, ten university hospital-based physicians participated in-depth interviews and observation studies. Based on Wilson’s problem solving process, this study analyzed the characteristics of each information search stage and efficiency of online searching. The results showed that participants tend to relatively immediately formulate their clinical questions. However, basic searching strategies were only used and a few preferred information sources were chosen. However, average satisfaction degree of online searching appeared high with 5.7 (7 Likert-scale) and problem-solving index increased after searching. As physicians are likely to use well organized and evidenced-based credible information easily, it implies the needs for an integrated search system within the electronic medical record (EMR). In addition, as other online resources’ awareness is lower comparing Google and PubMed, active promotions and training of other resources are needed.

keywords
의사, 문제해결, 임상질문, 정보검색과정, 정보검색, 정보탐색, 임상정보원, 데이터베이스, physician, clinician, problem solving, clinical questions, information search process, information seeking, clinical information resources, database

Reference

1.

김나원. (2009). 의사들의 의료정보추구행태에 관한 탐구. 정보관리학회지, 26(3), 435-449.

2.

박진영. (2012). 근거중심의학(EBM) 정보서비스 도입을 위한 연구 : 임상 전공의의 정보이용행태와 EBM에 대한 인식을 바탕으로.

3.

홍기선. (2008). 의사들의 정보요구 및 이용행태에 관한 연구. 한국도서관·정보학회지, 39(1), 33-50.

4.

Davidoff, F.. (2011). Delivering clinical evidence where it's needed: Building an information system worthy of the profession. Journal of the American Medical Association, 305(18), 1906-1907. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.619.

5.

Davies, K.. (2011). Information needs and barriers to accessing electronic information: Hospitalbased physicians compared to primary care physicians. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 11(3), 249-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15323269.2011.587103.

6.

De Groote, S. L.. (2005). Online journals' impact on the citation patterns of medical faculty. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(2), 223-228.

7.

Del Fiol, G.. (2014). Clinical questions raised by physicians at the point of care: A systematic review. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(5), 710-718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.368.

8.

Ely, J. W.. (2005). Answering physicians' clinical questions: Obstacles and potential solutions. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 12(2), 217-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m1608.

9.

Ely, J. W.. (2007). Patient-care questions that physicians are unable to answer. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(4), 407-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m2398.

10.

Grad, R.. (2011). Physicians' assessment of the value of clinical information: Operationalization of a theoretical model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1884-1891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21590.

11.

Hughes, B.. (2010). Doctors' online information needs, cognitive search strategies, and judgments of information quality and cognitive authority: How predictive judgments introduce bias into cognitive search models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 433-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21245.

12.

Kuhlthau, C. C.. (1991). Inside the search process : Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371.

13.

Landry, C. F.. (2006). Work roles, tasks, and the information behavior of dentists. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(14), 1806-1908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20385.

14.

Macedo-Rouet, M.. (2012). How do scientists select articles in the PubMed database? An empirical study of criteria and strategies. European Review of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 63-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2012.01.003.

15.

Schamber, L.. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia environment. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 28, 126-133.

16.

Spink, A.. (1996). Multiple search sessions model of end-user behavior : An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(8), 603-609.

17.

Vakkari, P.. (2000). Relevance and contributing information types of searched documents in task performance (2-9). Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM.

18.

Vakkari, P.. (2001). A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: A summary and generalisation of a longitudinal study. Journal of Documentation, 57(1), 44-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007075.

19.

Vibert N.. (2009). Effects of domain knowledge on reference search with the PubMed database : An experimental study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1423-1447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21078.

20.

Westbrook, J. I.. (2005). Use of point-of-care online clinical evidence by junior and senior doctors in New South Wales public hospitals. Internal Medicine Journal, 35(7), 399-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2005.00836.x.

21.

Wilson, T. D.. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249-270.

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management