RATIONALE: Methods to systematically assess electronic knowledge resources by health professionals may enhance evaluation of these resources, knowledge exchange between information users and providers, and continuing professional development. We developed the Information Assessment Method (IAM) to document health professional perspectives on the relevance, cognitive impact, potential use and expected health outcomes of information delivered by (push) or retrieved from (pull) electronic knowledge resources. However, little is known about push communication in health sciences, and what we propose to call clinical emailing channels (CECs). CECs can be understood as a communication infrastructure that channels clinically relevant research knowledge, email alerts, from information providers to the inboxes of individual practitioners. AIMS: In two companion papers, our objectives are to (part 1) explore CEC evaluation in routine practice, and (part 2) examine the content validity of the cognitive component of IAM. METHODS: The present paper (part 1) critically reviews the literature in health sciences and four disciplines: communication, information studies, education and knowledge translation. Our review addresses the following questions. What are CECs? How are they assessed? RESULTS: The review contributes to better define CECs, and proposes a 'push-pull-acquisition-cognition-application' evaluation framework, which is operationalized by IAM. CONCLUSION: Compared with existing evaluation tools, our review suggests IAM is comprehensive, generic and systematic.
RATIONALE: Methods to systematically assess electronic knowledge resources by health professionals may enhance evaluation of these resources, knowledge exchange between information users and providers, and continuing professional development. We developed the Information Assessment Method (IAM) to document health professional perspectives on the relevance, cognitive impact, potential use and expected health outcomes of information delivered by (push) or retrieved from (pull) electronic knowledge resources. However, little is known about push communication in health sciences, and what we propose to call clinical emailing channels (CECs). CECs can be understood as a communication infrastructure that channels clinically relevant research knowledge, email alerts, from information providers to the inboxes of individual practitioners. AIMS: In two companion papers, our objectives are to (part 1) explore CEC evaluation in routine practice, and (part 2) examine the content validity of the cognitive component of IAM. METHODS: The present paper (part 1) critically reviews the literature in health sciences and four disciplines: communication, information studies, education and knowledge translation. Our review addresses the following questions. What are CECs? How are they assessed? RESULTS: The review contributes to better define CECs, and proposes a 'push-pull-acquisition-cognition-application' evaluation framework, which is operationalized by IAM. CONCLUSION: Compared with existing evaluation tools, our review suggests IAM is comprehensive, generic and systematic.
Authors: Pierre Pluye; Roland Grad; Carol Repchinsky; Barbara Jovaisas; Denice Lewis; David Li Tang; Vera Granikov; James de Gaspé Bonar; Bernard Marlow Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Pierre Pluye; Araceli Gonzalez-Reyes; David Li Tang; Hani Badran; Carol A Repchinsky; Barbara Jovaisas; Jo-Anne Hutsul; Philip Emberley; Roland M Grad Journal: Can Pharm J (Ott) Date: 2016-02-12
Authors: Roland Grad; Pierre Pluye; Carol Repchinsky; Barbara Jovaisas; Bernard Marlow; Ivan L Marques Ricarte; Maria Cristiane Barbosa Galvão; Michael Shulha; James de Gaspé Bonar; Jonathan L Moscovici Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Roland Grad; Pierre Pluye; Eric Wong; Carlos Brailovsky; Jonathan L Moscovici; Janusz Kaczorowski; Charo Rodriguez; Francesca Luconi; Mathieu Rousseau; Mark Karanofsky; Bethany Delleman; Stefan Kegel; Mathew Mercuri; Maria Kluchnyk; Inge Schabort Journal: PRiMER Date: 2017-08-08
Authors: Roland Grad; Pierre Pluye; Janique Johnson-Lafleur; Vera Granikov; Michael Shulha; Gillian Bartlett; Bernard Marlow Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Thomas Agoritsas; Emma Iserman; Nicholas Hobson; Natasha Cohen; Adam Cohen; Pavel S Roshanov; Miguel Perez; Chris Cotoi; Rick Parrish; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Nancy L Wilczynski; Alfonso Iorio; R Brian Haynes Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 7.327