ArticleJournal of medical systems2018
Improving Evidence Dissemination and Accessibility through a Mobile-based Resource Platform.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- The development and evaluation of a social media-based HIV knowledge dissemination platform in China.International journal of nursing sciences · 2023Article
- The Use of Social Media for Dissemination of Research Evidence to Health and Social Care Practitioners: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Social Media for ImpLementing Evidence (SMILE): Conceptual Framework.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Article
- Burnout level and job satisfaction in Chinese pediatrics residents: A web-based cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2020Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current mobile information technologies fundamentally influence evidence dissemination from the perspective of both evidence seekers and evidence providers. However, there is no related study which tried using a mobile-based platform to disseminate evidence in China. The main object of this study is to develop a mobile-based evidence resource platform and to evaluate its effects of improving nurses' access to evidence-based practice resources and meeting users' demands. The mobile-based evidence resource platform was developed in 2014. A cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of 2 months between December 2015 and January 2016 to evaluate user experiences of and preferences regarding the platform. Descriptive analysis was adopted to analyze information and its communication effects from December 2014 to March 2017. A total of 472 participants met the inclusion criteria and responded to the survey. High scores were received for the overall rating (4.34 ± 0.67), evidence section (4.30 ± 0.63), learning materials section (4.26 ± 0.65), news section (4.27 ± 0.66), readability (4.38 ± 0.63), design and structure (4.38 ± 0.63), and interactivity (3.58 ± 0.84). As of March 31, 2017, the total number of followers was 28,954. The total number of readings was 584,834. The most current WCI value was 388.72. Our study demonstrated that the mobile-based platform for evidence transfer can promote the accessibility of evidence and meet users' demands. This mobile-based platform is currently available in the WeChat application environment. It will be a wise option for healthcare professionals for the purposes of learning about EBP and disseminating evidence in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29808443What 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.