Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14662801›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Do clinicians use online evidence to support patient care? A study of 55,000 clinicians.

Johanna I Westbrook, A Sophie Gosling, Enrico Coiera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Automated identification of molecular effects of drugs (AIMED).Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Practical choices for infobutton customization: experience from four sites.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2013
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Johanna I WestbrookCentre for Health Informatics, Level 2, Samuels Building, University of New South Wales, Kensington, 2052, Australia. j.westbrook@unsw.edu.au
A Sophie Gosling
Enrico Coiera

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine clinicians' (doctors', nurses', and allied health professionals') "actual" and "reported" use of a point-of-care online information retrieval system; and to make an assessment of the extent to which use is related to direct patient care by testing two hypotheses: hypothesis 1: clinicians use online evidence primarily to support clinical decisions relating to direct patient care; and hypothesis 2: clinicians use online evidence predominantly for research and continuing education.

designWeb-log analysis of the Clinical Information Access Program (CIAP), an online, 24-hour, point-of-care information retrieval system available to 55,000 clinicians in public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. A statewide mail survey of 5,511 clinicians. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of online evidence searching per 100 clinicians for the state and for the 81 individual hospitals studied; reported use of CIAP by clinicians through a self-administered questionnaire; and correlations between evidence searches and patient admissions.

resultsMonthly rates of 48.5 "search sessions" per 100 clinicians and 231.6 text hits to single-source databases per 100 clinicians (n = 619,545); 63% of clinicians reported that they were aware of CIAP and 75% of those had used it. Eighty-eight percent of users reported CIAP had the potential to improve patient care and 41% reported direct experience of this. Clinicians' use of CIAP on each day of the week was highly positively correlated with patient admissions (r = 0.99, p < 0.001). This was also true for all ten randomly selected hospitals.

conclusionClinicians' online evidence use increases with patient admissions, supporting the hypothesis that clinicians' use of evidence is related to direct patient care. Patterns of evidence use and clinicians' self-reports also support this hypothesis.

Indexed as

Decision Making, Computer-AssistedAttitude to ComputersDatabases, BibliographicData CollectionHealth PersonnelHumansNew South WalesOnline SystemsPatient CarePoint-of-Care Systems

Identifiers

PMID14662801
PMCPMC353016

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.