ArticleHealth information and libraries journal2024
Information-seeking behaviour of primary care clinicians in Singapore at the point-of-care: A qualitative study.
Article in Health information and libraries journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Information-seeking behaviour of primary care clinicians in Singapore at the point-of-care: A qualitative study.Health information and libraries journal · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinicians' information-seeking behaviours impact patient care quality. Earlier studies indicated that barriers to accessing information deter clinicians from seeking answers to clinical questions.
objectivesTo explore primary care clinicians' information-seeking behaviour at point-of-care, focusing on when and how they seek answers to clinical questions.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 45 clinicians after clinical sessions to investigate their information-seeking habits. Follow-up interviews were conducted after a week for those intending to address unanswered queries.
resultsTwo thirds of clinicians encountered questions during care, with nearly three quarters resolving them during the session. Colleagues, guidelines and online platforms were common information sources, with smartphones being used to access Google, WhatsApp or UpToDate®. Facilitators included reliable sources and the drive to confirm knowledge, while barriers included ineffective search methods and high workload. Despite challenges, most clinicians expressed satisfaction with their information-seeking process. DISCUSSION: The findings underscore the increasing use of smartphones for accessing clinical information among Singaporean primary care clinicians and suggest the need for tailored training programmes and guidelines to optimise information-seeking practices.
conclusionInsights from this study can inform the development of training programmes and guidelines aimed at improving information-seeking practices among primary care clinicians, potentially enhancing patient care quality.
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.