Trial reportJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2016
Rural providers' access to online resources: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2016. 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.
- Evaluating Procedure Videos to Support Clinical Nurses With Rare Procedures: Impact on Anxiety and Clinical Reasoning in a Pre-Post Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- 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
- Integrating research into practice.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe research determined the usage and satisfaction levels with one of two point-of-care (PoC) resources among health care providers in a rural state.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, twenty-eight health care providers in rural areas were stratified by occupation and region, then randomized into either the DynaMed or the AccessMedicine study arm. Study participants were physicians, physician assistants, and nurses. A pre- and post-study survey measured participants' attitudes toward different information resources and their information-seeking activities. Medical student investigators provided training and technical support for participants. Data analyses consisted of analysis of variance (ANOVA), paired t tests, and Cohen's d statistic to compare pre- and post-study effects sizes.
resultsParticipants in both the DynaMed and the AccessMedicine arms of the study reported increased satisfaction with their respective PoC resource, as expected. Participants in both arms also reported that they saved time in finding needed information. At baseline, both arms reported too little information available, which increased to "about right amounts of information" at the completion of the study. DynaMed users reported a Cohen's d increase of +1.50 compared to AccessMedicine users' reported use of 0.82. DynaMed users reported d2 satisfaction increases of 9.48 versus AccessMedicine satisfaction increases of 0.59 using a Cohen's d.
conclusionParticipants in the DynaMed arm of the study used this clinically oriented PoC more heavily than the users of the textbook-based AccessMedicine. In terms of user satisfaction, DynaMed users reported higher levels of satisfaction than the users of AccessMedicine.
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.