Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22275940›Full record

ArticleAfrican health sciences2011

Sea-change or change challenge? Health information access in developing countries: The U.S. National Library of Medicine experience.

J Royall, B Lyon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in African health sciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Building capacity in a health sciences library to support global health projects.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2014
    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

2 authors.

J RoyallNational Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA. jroyall@nlm.nih.gov
B Lyon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health professionals in developing countries want access to information to help them make changes in health care and contribute to medical research. However, they face challenges of technology limitations, lack of training, and, on the village level, culture and language. This report focuses on the U.S. National Library of Medicine experience with access: for the international medical/scientific community to health information which has been published by researchers in developing countries; for scientists and clinicians in developing countries to their own literature and to that of their colleagues around the world; for medical librarians who are a critical conduit for students, faculty, researchers, and, increasingly, the general public; and for the front line workers at the health center in the village at the end of the line. The fundamental question of whether or not information communication technology can make a difference in access and subsequently in health is illustrated by an anecdote regarding an early intervention in Africa in 1992. From that point, we examine programs to improve access involving malaria researchers, medical journal editors, librarians, and medical students working with local health center staff in the village. Although access is a reality, the positive change in health that the information technology intervention might produce often remains a mirage. Information and technology are not static elements in the equation for better access. They must function together, creating a dialectic in which they transform and inform one another and those whom their combination touches.

Indexed as

Developed CountriesLibrary ServicesNational Library of Medicine (U.S.)Access to InformationAfricaLibrary ScienceMalariaMedical InformaticsMedlinePlusPeriodicals as TopicUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22275940
PMCPMC3260996

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.