ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2011
Outreach impact study: the case of the Greater Midwest Region.
Article 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of health information outreach: theory, practice, and future direction.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of the study was to assess the impact that funding from the National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM), Greater Midwest Region (GMR), has on member institutions' ability to conduct outreach on behalf of NN/LM.
methodsThe study employed both content analysis and survey methodologies. The final reports from select GMR-funded outreach projects (n = 20) were analyzed based on a set of evaluation criteria. Project principal investigators (n = 13) were then surveyed using the same evaluation criteria.
resultsResults indicated that outreach projects supported by GMR funding improved access to biomedical information for professionals and the general public. Barriers to conducting outreach projects included time constraints or commitments, staffing, scheduling and absenteeism, inadequate space, and issues associated with technology (e.g., hardware and software, Internet connectivity and firewall issues, and creation and use of new technologies).
conclusionsThe majority of project principal investigators indicated that their attempts to conduct outreach were successful. Moreover, most noted that outreach had a positive impact on professionals as well as the general public. In general, it seems that negative outcomes, as with most barriers to conducting outreach, can be mitigated by more thorough planning.
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.