ArticleBMC medical education2016
How do junior medical officers use online information resources? A survey.
Article in BMC medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A clinical decision support system improves antibiotic therapy for upper urinary tract infection in a randomized single-blinded study.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- Medical Residents' Informal Learning from Pharmacists in the Clinical Workplace.Medical science educator · 2023Article
- Addressing the Burden and Management Strategies for Disparities and Inequities Among Liver Transplant Professionals: The ILTS Experience.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023Review
- A mixed methods study on medicines information needs and challenges in New Zealand general practice.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Paediatric antimicrobial stewardship and safe prescribing: an assessment of medical staff knowledge and behaviour.Pharmacy practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline information resources function dually as important learning tools and sources of the latest evidence-based recommendations for junior medical officers (JMOs). However, little is currently known about how JMOs utilise this information when providing care for their patients. This study aimed to examine the usage and experience of online information resources amongst JMOs in South Australia to ascertain (i) the type of resources accessed, (ii) the frequency, (iii) the intended purpose, and (iv) the perceived reliability.
methodsA survey instrument using multiple choices, five-point Likert scales and free-text comments was developed and distributed through SurveyMonkey to South Australian JMOs between 1 May 2014 and 30 June 2014.
resultsOf the 142 surveyed, 100 JMOs (70.4%) used online information resources as their first approach over all other resources available. JMOs overwhelmingly (94.4%, n = 134) used online information resources at least once per day, with the most frequent purpose for use being information regarding prescription medication (82.4%, n = 117, reported 'very frequent' use). JMOs stated online resources were necessary to perform their work and, of the different types of information accessed, they rated peer-reviewed resources as the most reliable.
conclusionsJMOs strongly rely upon online clinical information in their everyday practice. Importantly, provision of these resources assists JMOs in their education and clinical performance.
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.