ArticleBMJ open2016
Qualitative study of physicians' varied uses of biomedical research in the USA.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to clinical information seeking: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Legal and Ethical Considerations for the Design and Use of Web Portals for Researchers, Clinicians, and Patients: Scoping Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- What cancer research makes the news? A quantitative analysis of online news stories that mention cancer studies.PloS one · 2021Article
- Why are they not accessing it? User barriers to clinical information access.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019Article
- Wikipedia as a gateway to biomedical research: The relative distribution and use of citations in the English Wikipedia.PloS one · 2017Article
- Tear down the walls: Disseminating open access research for a global impact.International journal of health sciencesArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the nature of physicians' use of research evidence in experimental conditions of open access to inform training and policy.
designThis qualitative study was a component of a larger mixed-methods initiative that provided 336 physicians with relatively complete access to research literature via PubMed and UpToDate, for 1 year via an online portal, with their usage recorded in web logs. Using a semistructured interview protocol, a subset of 38 physician participants were interviewed about their use of research articles in general and were probed about their reasons for accessing specific articles as identified through their web logs. Transcripts were analysed using a general inductive approach.
settingPhysician participants were recruited from and registered in the USA.
participants38 physicians from 16 US states, engaged in 22 medical specialties, possessing more than 1 year of experience postresidency training participated.
results26 participants attested to the value of consulting research literature within the context of the study by making reference to their roles as clinicians, educators, researchers, learners, administrators and advocates. The physicians reported previously encountering what they experienced as a prohibitive paywall barrier to the research literature and other frustrations with the nature of information systems, such as the need for passwords.
conclusionsThe findings, against the backdrop of growing open access to biomedical research, indicate that a minority of physicians, at least initially, is likely to seek out and use research and do so in a variety of common roles. Physicians' use of research in these roles has not traditionally been part of their training or part of the considerations for open access policies. The findings have implications for educational and policy initiatives directed towards increasing the effectiveness of this access to and use of research in improving the quality of healthcare.
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.