ArticlePloS one2025
Attitudes and opinions of medical practitioners, librarians, and LIS academics towards health science library services to support evidence-based medical practice in South Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThis study explores the attitudes and opinions of health science librarians, university academic staff, and medical practitioners towards health science library services to support Evidence-Based Medical Practice (EBMP) in eThekwini, South Africa. It aims to develop an EBMP model for health science library services, focusing on the importance of timely, evidence-based information for quality healthcare. The research also focuses on improving the readiness and qualifications of librarians to support medical practitioners in EBMP implementation. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsA mixed-methods survey was conducted with 251 medical practitioners (31 private and public hospitals), five health science librarians (5 public hospitals), and 24 LIS academic staff (10 South African universities and universities of technology that offer a qualification in Library and Information Science (LIS). Medical practitioners expressed tremendous appreciation for EBMP but identified considerable obstacles, such as time constraints, inadequate access to vital internet resources at their workplace, and excessive patient loads. Medical practitioners agreed that librarians can expedite their research in complex cases by providing pertinent information, yet they expressed significant dissatisfaction with current library services, identifying a deficiency in specialized EBMP support and resources. Health science librarians, though indicated, lacked formal EBMP training and were interested in taking courses or training related to EBMP, a gap reflected in LIS academic curricula, which currently offer no specialized EBMP courses. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: There is a clear gap between the documented importance of EBMP and the medical library services support available in South African hospitals. The study underscores the imperative for specialized EBMP support services training for librarians, including in LIS education and hospital professional development, alongside a significant investment in contemporary library infrastructure and digital resources. A collaborative framework for health science library services is suggested to augment the use of EBMP, better patient outcomes, and promote a culture of continuous learning.
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.