Trial reportHealth information and libraries journal2014
A mixed-methods analysis of a library-based hand-held intervention with rural clinicians.
Trial report in Health information and libraries journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A library mobile device deployment to enhance the medical student experience in a rural longitudinal integrated clerkship.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019Article
- Highlighting a valuable dimension in health care librarianship: A systematic review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2018Article
- Use of Tablet Computers to Promote Physical Therapy Students' Engagement in Knowledge Translation During Clinical Experiences.Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe East Tennessee State University Quillen College of Medicine Library has participated for several years in projects to provide rural clinicians with health information resources.
objectivesTo determine whether a strategy of hand-held devices with a best-evidence point-of-care disease tool and a drug database paired with access to a medical library for full-text articles and training to use the tools would be an affordable way to meet the information needs of rural underserved clinicians.
methodsThis study is a mixed-methods methodology. The first project was evaluated using a randomised controlled trial (RCT) methodology. The second was evaluated qualitatively using interviews and focus groups.
resultsThe quantitative findings discovered that clinicians equipped with a hand-held device with evidence-based software more frequently found answers to clinical questions, found answers more quickly, were more satisfied with information they found and use expensive resources such as continuing medical education, online databases and textbooks less than the group that did not have access to online technology. Qualitative results supported the quantitative findings.
conclusionLibrarians can implement a three-pronged strategy of the secondary literature via a hand-held, the primary literature via Loansome Doc and quality training to meet basic information needs of rural clinicians.
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.