The few studies of these groups in an academic or research setting showed that, unlike busy health practitioners, access to and use of the research literature are considered essential for their work. Only a few information needs studies have been conducted with clinical or basic science researchers and none among administrators in research settings, the types of scientists seen frequently in many academic health sciences centers and in research institutes such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). They found no change in information-seeking behaviors, with lack of time and limited searching ability again the primary obstacles.
reviewed studies of primary care physicians published between 19, a period when information technology and medical databases became widely available to health practitioners. Cogdill also confirmed Gorman and Helfand's finding that “the generalizability of the need, or the extent to which it could be applied to the care of other patients … is a negative predictor of information seeking”. Cogdill and others extended these findings to nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and personnel in other clinical settings. Online databases and libraries, even when available, were infrequently consulted due to lack of time or search skills.
When answers were sought, physicians first turned to colleagues, then to print resources such as textbooks and journals in their offices. However, fewer than half the questions were pursued. Studies of primary care physicians showed that their questions were frequently related to diagnosis, treatment, and drug therapy of conditions presenting during office visits. In the last twenty-five years, research has contributed to a better understanding of information needs and information-seeking behaviors among health practitioners in primary care settings. The study led to improvements or expansion of services such as developing a Website search engine, organizing gene sequence data, and assisting with manuscript preparation. The findings underscored the need to continue assessing specialized needs and seek innovative solutions. NIH scientists overwhelmingly used the NIH Library (424/500), began their searches at the library's Website rather than Google ( P = < 0.001), were likely to seek information themselves (474/500), and valued desktop resources and services.Ĭonclusion: While NIH staff work in a unique setting, they share some information characteristics with other researchers. Results: The study results highlighted similarities and differences with other studies and the industry standard, providing insights into user preferences, including new technologies.
Findings were compared with published studies and an aggregated dataset of information users in business, government, and health care from Outsell. Results were analyzed for statistical significance using t- tests and chi square. Methods: A random stratified sample by job category of 500 NIH scientists was surveyed by telephone by an independent consultant using a standardized information industry instrument, augmented with locally developed questions. Objective: An information needs study of clinical specialists and biomedical researchers was conducted at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to inform library services and contribute to a broader understanding of information use in academic and research settings.
0 kommentar(er)
