Reading habits of practicing physiatrists
Reading habits of practicing physiatrists
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00002060-200210000-00011
复制
发表时间：
2002-10-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Latta, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burke, DT;Judelson, AL;Latta, D
目的：在过去的30年里，ACGME认可的专业数量翻了两番，MEDLINE上编目的期刊数量翻了一番。鉴于信息的增加，本研究试图确定物理医学和康复领域的专家阅读相关期刊的数量和程度。设计：从随机选择的符合委员会资格的物理医生和美国物理医学和康复委员会的文凭名单中，1204名住院医师、研究员和主治医师被发送了关于他们阅读习惯的问卷。调查表载有36份根据以前出版的与物理医学和康复有关的期刊清单改编的期刊清单。医生们被要求详细说明他们在过去一年中阅读了哪些期刊，以及这些期刊的阅读范围。受访者还被要求注明他们是否参加了学术或私人实践，以及他们是否尽可能多地阅读。结果：很少有期刊能够做到通读，较受欢迎的期刊的响应模式是“总是浏览目录，阅读最重要的文章”。学术理疗师的阅读量比私人执业的同行要多。在回答的亚专家中，67%的人阅读与他们的亚专业相关的期刊。83%的受访者表示，他们的阅读量没有自己想要的那么多。结论：物理医生很少能够完全阅读他们领域中最相关的期刊。在阅读期刊时，大多数物理医生只浏览目录和阅读最重要的摘要。
Objective: Over the past 30 yr, the number of ACGME accredited specialties has quadrupled, and the number of journals cataloged on MEDLINE has doubled. Given this increase of information, this study sought to determine the amount and extent that pertinent journals are read by specialists in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation.Design: From a randomly selected list of board-eligible physiatrists and diplomates of the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1204 resident physicians, fellows, and attending physicians were sent questionnaires concerning their reading habits. The questionnaire contained a list of 36 journals adapted from a list of journals previously published as being pertinent to physical medicine and rehabilitation. Physicians were asked to specify which journals they read over the past year and how extensively these were read. Respondents were also asked to note whether they participated in an academic or private practice and if they read as much as they would like.Results: The results revealed that very few journals were always read thoroughly, with the modal response among the more popular journals being that of "always scanned the table of contents and read the most important articles." Academic physiatrists were noted to read more than their private practice counterparts. Of the subspecialists who replied, 67% read a journal pertinent to their subspecialty. Eighty-three percent of all respondents reported that they did not read as much as they would like.Conclusion: Physiatrists are rarely able to completely read the most relevant journals in their field. When reading journals, most physiatrists only scan the table of contents and read the most important abstracts.