Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18219379›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2008

Exploring clinician adoption of a novel evidence request feature in an electronic medical record system.

Rebecca N Jerome, Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse, S Trent Rosenbloom, Patrick G Arbogast

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Rebecca N JeromeEskind Biomedical Library, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2209 Garland Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232-8340, USA. rebecca.jerome@vanderbilt.edu
Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse
S Trent Rosenbloom
Patrick G Arbogast

Funding

Vanderbilt Biomedical Informatics Training ProgramT15LM007450 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI Jessica S. Ancker, Bradley A. Malin · 2002 to 2026
$19.7M
The Clinical Informationist: Does the Model Work?R01LM007849 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI GIUSE, NUNZIA B · 2003 to 2005
$1.1M
Testing Evaluation Metrics for Interface TerminologiesK22LM008576 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI ROSENBLOOM, SAMUEL T · 2005 to 2007
$453k
NLM NIH HHS 2K22 LM008576-02NLM NIH HHS 5 R01 LM07849-02NLM NIH HHS K22 LM008576NLM NIH HHS R01 LM007849NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007450NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007450-03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe research evaluated strategies for facilitating physician adoption of an evidence-based medicine literature request feature recently integrated into an existing electronic medical record (EMR) system.

methodsThis prospective study explored use of the service by 137 primary care physicians by using service usage statistics and focus group and survey components. The frequency of physicians' requests for literature via the EMR during a 10-month period was examined to explore the impact of several enhanced communication strategies launched mid-way through the observation period. A focus group and a 25-item survey explored physicians' experiences with the service.

resultsThere was no detectable difference in the proportion of physicians utilizing the service after implementation of the customized communication strategies (11% in each time period, P=1.0, McNemar's test). Forty-eight physicians (35%) responded to the survey. Respondents who had used the service (n=19) indicated that information provided through the service was highly relevant to clinical practice (mean rating 4.6, scale 1 "not relevant"-5 "highly relevant"), and most (n=15) reported sharing the information with colleagues.

conclusionThe enhanced communication strategies, though well received, did not significantly affect use of the service. However, physicians noted the relevance and utility of librarian-summarized evidence from the literature, highlighting the potential benefits of providing expert librarian services in clinical workflow.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEvidence-Based MedicineFocus GroupsHealth Care SurveysHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedProspective StudiesTennessee

Identifiers

PMID18219379
PMCPMC2212326

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.