Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12883563›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2003

Information-seeking behavior in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM): an online survey of faculty at a health sciences campus.

David J Owen, Min-Lin E Fang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David J OwenKalmanovitz Library and Center for Knowledge Management, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143-0840, USA. owen@library.ucsf.edu
Min-Lin E Fang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe amount of reliable information available for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is limited, and few authoritative resources are available.

objectiveThe objective is to investigate the information-seeking behavior of health professionals seeking CAM information.

methodsData were gathered using a Web-based questionnaire made available to health sciences faculty affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco.

resultsThe areas of greatest interest were herbal medicine (67%), relaxation exercises (53%), and acupuncture (52%). About half the respondents perceived their CAM searches as being only partially successful. Eighty-two percent rated MEDLINE as a useful resource, 46% personal contacts with colleagues, 46% the Web, 40% journals, and 20% textbooks. Books and databases most frequently cited as useful had information about herbs. The largest group of respondents was in internal medicine (26%), though 15% identified their specialties as psychiatry, psychology, behavioral medicine, or addiction medicine. There was no correlation between specialty and patterns of information-seeking behavior. Sixty-six percent expressed an interest in learning more about CAM resources.

conclusionsHealth professionals are frequently unable to locate the CAM information they need, and the majority have little knowledge of existing CAM resources, relying instead on MEDLINE. Medical librarians need to educate health professionals in the identification and use of authoritative CAM resources.

Indexed as

CaliforniaComplementary TherapiesFacultyHumansInformation ServicesLibrary SurveysOnline SystemsSchools, Health OccupationsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID12883563
PMCPMC164394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.