EVALUATION OF ONLINE LITERATURE SEARCHING BY PHYSICIANS

电子信息系统可能有助于改善其中一个 最重要的问题，在医疗保健， 专业人士在获取及时的信息 为患者提供最佳管理。 许多研究表明，医生很难 收集和解释信息，以保持最新， 应用信息。 研究还表明， 当他们缺乏信息时，他们更喜欢印刷来源，但是，在 实践中，大多数问题都没有得到回答，因为立即 信息来源不足，期刊选择少 和混乱的重印文件。 目前的电子医学文献数据库可以提供 从诊所和床边几乎即时访问大量的 更新信息。 例如，MEDLINE（来自美国） 国家医学图书馆）包含超过400万次引用， 很多都有摘要，BRS/Saunders，同事，有点多 昂贵的服务，有MEDLINE文件加上一个扩展 全文期刊和教科书的数量。 因此，用户可以 “一站式”电子采购信息。 加拿大医院协会提供MEDLINE和 同事，以及其他服务。 我们建议将这项服务 在诊所和麦克马斯特大学的病房都可以买到 医疗中心为期8个月的试用期，以确定： 1. 不同级别临床医生的使用频率和模式 不同的背景特征; 2. 引起使用的临床问题; 3. 临床医生构建检索的专业知识， 有两种类型的“专家”搜索者：a）有经验的临床医生 与在线搜索; B）图书馆员谁充当搜索 健康科学图书馆的中介机构; 4. 临床医生认为服务满足的程度 他们的期望，提供有用的信息和影响， 临床决策; 5. 检索导致检索文章的程度， 报告与临床问题相关的研究， 科学合理; 6. 支持临床的图表中的文献引用频率 决定; 7. 实行用户费的影响，经过一段时间的介绍， 免费使用，对频率和效率的搜索和 使用的搜索服务类型。

Electronic information systems may help ameliorate one of the most important problems in health care, the difficulty that health professionals have in acquiring timely access to the information required to give patients optimum management. Many studies have shown that physicians have difficulty in collecting and interpreting information, in keeping up to date, and in applying information. Studies have also shown that physicians prefer print sources when they lack information but, that, in practice, most questions go unanswered because immediate information sources are inadequate, meager selection of journals and disorganized reprint files. Current electronic medical literature databases can provide virtually instant access from clinic and bedside to a vast array of updated information. For example, MEDLINE (from the U.S. National Library of Medicine) contains over 4 million citations, many with abstracts, BRS/Saunders, Colleague, a somewhat more expensive service, has the MEDLINE files plus an expanding number of fulltext journals and textbooks. Thus, users can do "one stop" electronic shopping for information. The Canadian Hospital Association offers both MEDLINE and Colleague, plus other services. We propose to make this service available in clinics and on the wards of McMaster University Medical Center for an 8 month trial period to determine: 1. frequency and patterns of use by clinicians at different levels of training and with different background characteristics; 2. clinical problems that give rise to use; 3. expertise of clinicians in constructing searches in comparison with 'expert' searchers of two types: a) clinicians experienced with online searching; b) librarians who act as search intermediaries in the Health Science Library; 4. extent to which clinicians perceive that the services meets their expectations, provides useful information and influences clinical decision-making; 5. extent to which searches lead to the retrieval of articles that report studies that are both relevant to the clinical problem and scientifically sound; 6. frequency of literature citation in charts supporting clinical decisions; 7. effect of introducing user fees, after an introductory period of free use, on the frequency and efficiency of searches and the types of search services used.