Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19023446›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2008

Just-in-time information improved decision-making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.

Jessie McGowan, William Hogg, Craig Campbell, Margo Rowan

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Referral interventions from primary to specialist care: a systematic review of international evidence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effects of librarian-provided services in healthcare settings: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Analysis ofOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Writing on the Wall: An Exercise in Clinical Reasoning.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Building health behavior models to guide the development of just-in-time adaptive interventions: A pragmatic framework.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2015
    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.

Jessie McGowanFaculty of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. jmcgowan@uottawa.ca
William Hogg
Craig Campbell
Margo Rowan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe "Just-in-time Information" (JIT) librarian consultation service was designed to provide rapid information to answer primary care clinical questions during patient hours. This study evaluated whether information provided by librarians to answer clinical questions positively impacted time, decision-making, cost savings and satisfaction. METHODS AND FINDING: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between October 2005 and April 2006. A total of 1,889 questions were sent to the service by 88 participants. The object of the randomization was a clinical question. Each participant had clinical questions randomly allocated to both intervention (librarian information) and control (no librarian information) groups. Participants were trained to send clinical questions via a hand-held device. The impact of the information provided by the service (or not provided by the service), additional resources and time required for both groups was assessed using a survey sent 24 hours after a question was submitted. The average time for JIT librarians to respond to all questions was 13.68 minutes/question (95% CI, 13.38 to 13.98). The average time for participants to respond their control questions was 20.29 minutes/question (95% CI, 18.72 to 21.86). Using an impact assessment scale rating cognitive impact, participants rated 62.9% of information provided to intervention group questions as having a highly positive cognitive impact. They rated 14.8% of their own answers to control question as having a highly positive cognitive impact, 44.9% has having a negative cognitive impact, and 24.8% with no cognitive impact at all. In an exit survey measuring satisfaction, 86% (62/72 responses) of participants scored the service as having a positive impact on care and 72% (52/72) indicated that they would use the service frequently if it were continued.

conclusionsIn this study, providing timely information to clinical questions had a highly positive impact on decision-making and a high approval rating from participants. Using a librarian to respond to clinical questions may allow primary care professionals to have more time in their day, thus potentially increasing patient access to care. Such services may reduce costs through decreasing the need for referrals, further tests, and other courses of action.

trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN96823810.

Indexed as

Decision MakingComputers, HandheldHumansLibrariansPrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID19023446
PMCPMC2583045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.