Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33377874›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

The Online Health Information Needs of Family Physicians: Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies.

Piet van der Keylen, Johanna Tomandl, Katharina Wollmann, Ralph Möhler, Mario Sofroniou, Andy Maun, Sebastian Voigt-Radloff, Luca Frank

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Piet van der KeylenFriedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Institute of General Practice, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4191-7192
Johanna TomandlFriedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Institute of General Practice, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5571-421X
Katharina WollmannInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7853-4967
Ralph MöhlerInstitute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Center for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8637-7818
Mario SofroniouDivision of General Practice, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3522-2693
Andy MaunDivision of General Practice, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9213-6583
Sebastian Voigt-RadloffCochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2745-3328
Luca FrankFriedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Institute of General Practice, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0132-2944

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigitalization and the increasing availability of online information have changed the way in which information is searched for and retrieved by the public and by health professionals. The technical developments in the last two decades have transformed the methods of information retrieval. Although systematic evidence exists on the general information needs of specialists, and in particular, family physicians (FPs), there have been no recent systematic reviews to specifically address the needs of FPs and any barriers that may exist to accessing online health information.

objectiveThis review aims to provide an up-to-date perspective on the needs of FPs in searching, retrieving, and using online information.

methodsThis systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies searched a multitude of databases spanning the years 2000 to 2020 (search date January 2020). Studies that analyzed the online information needs of FPs, any barriers to the accessibility of information, and their information-seeking behaviors were included. Two researchers independently scrutinized titles and abstracts, analyzing full-text papers for their eligibility, the studies therein, and the data obtained from them.

resultsThe initial search yielded 4541 studies for initial title and abstract screening. Of the 144 studies that were found to be eligible for full-text screening, 41 were finally included. A total of 20 themes were developed and summarized into 5 main categories: individual needs of FPs before the search; access needs, including factors that would facilitate or hinder information retrieval; quality needs of the information to hand; utilization needs of the information available; and implication needs for everyday practice.

conclusionsThis review suggests that searching, accessing, and using online information, as well as any pre-existing needs, barriers, or demands, should not be perceived as separate entities but rather be regarded as a sequential process. Apart from accessing information and evaluating its quality, FPs expressed concerns regarding the applicability of this information to their everyday practice and its subsequent relevance to patient care. Future online information resources should cater to the needs of the primary care setting and seek to address the way in which such resources may be adapted to these specific requirements.

Indexed as

HumansInformation Seeking BehaviorInternetPhysicians, Familybarriersfamily physiciansgeneral practitionershealth informationhealth resourcesinformation-seeking behaviorsinternetmobile phoneneedsonline informationprimary care

Identifiers

PMID33377874
PMCPMC7806443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.