Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27872121›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Qualitative study of physicians' varied uses of biomedical research in the USA.

Lauren A Maggio, Laura L Moorhead, John M Willinsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Barriers and facilitators to clinical information seeking: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Why are they not accessing it? User barriers to clinical information access.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Lauren A MaggioDepartment of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Laura L MoorheadDepartment of Journalism, College of Liberal and Creative Arts, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, USA.
John M WillinskyGraduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Access to InformationAttitude of Health PersonnelBiomedical ResearchFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMedical InformaticsPhysiciansQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesMEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING

Identifiers

PMID27872121
PMCPMC5128940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.