EVALUATION OF ONLINE LITERATURE SEARCHING BY PHYSICIANS

电子信息系统可能有助于改善其中一个 医疗保健中最重要的问题，健康的困难 专业人士在获得及时获取信息方面 要求对患者进行最佳管理。 许多研究表明，医生在治疗中有困难 收集和解释信息，以保持最新，以及 在应用信息方面。研究还表明，医生 当他们缺乏信息时，更喜欢印刷来源，但在 练习，大多数问题都没有得到回答，因为直接 信息来源不足，选择的期刊很少 和杂乱无章的重印文件。 当前的电子医学文献数据库可以提供 从诊所和床边几乎可以即时访问大量的 更新信息。例如，MEDLINE(来自美国 国家医学图书馆)包含了400多万条引文， 许多人有摘要，BRS/Saunders，同事，有点多 昂贵的服务，有MEDLINE文件和扩展 全文期刊和教科书的数量。因此，用户可以 “一站式”电子购物获取信息。 加拿大医院协会提供MEDLINE和 同事，外加其他服务。我们建议提供这项服务 在麦克马斯特大学的诊所和病房提供 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 训练有素，背景特点不同； 2.引起使用的临床问题； 3.临床医生在构建比较检索方面的专门知识 有两种类型的专家搜索者：a)有经验的临床医生 使用在线搜索；b)充当搜索的图书馆员 健康科学图书馆的中间人； 4.临床医生认为服务符合的程度 他们的期望，提供了有用的信息和影响 临床决策； 5.搜索在多大程度上导致检索符合以下条件的文章 报告既与临床问题相关的研究，也与 科学性强； 6.支持临床的图表中引用文献的频率 决定； 7.在经过#年的介绍期后，引入用户费用的效果 免费使用，关于搜索的频率和效率以及 使用的搜索服务的类型。

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.