Trial reportJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2011
Evaluating information prescriptions in two clinical environments.
Trial report in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalization of health information prescription in diabetes clinical setting: A qualitative study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- Libraries and Librarians: Key Partners for Progress in Health Literacy Research and Practice.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2017Article
- Consumer Use of "Dr Google": A Survey on Health Information-Seeking Behaviors and Navigational Needs.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Article
- Information prescriptions, 1930-2013: an international history and comprehensive review.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2014Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrections2012
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe research sought to evaluate whether providing personalized information services by libraries can improve satisfaction with information services for specific types of patients.
methodsAdult breast cancer (BrCa) clinic patients and mothers of inpatient neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients were randomized to receive routine information services (control) or an IRx intervention.
resultsThe BrCa trial randomized 211 patients and the NICU trial, 88 mothers. The BrCa trial showed no statistically significant differences in satisfaction ratings between the treatment and control groups. The IRx group in the NICU trial reported higher satisfaction than the control group regarding information received about diagnosis, treatments, respiratory tradeoffs, and medication tradeoffs. BrCa patients posed questions to librarians more frequently than did NICU mothers, and a higher percentage reported using the website. Questions asked of the librarians by BrCa patients were predominantly clinical and focused on the areas of treatment and side effects.
conclusionsStudy results provide some evidence to support further efforts to both implement information prescription projects in selected settings and to conduct additional research on the costs and benefits of services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.