Literature DB >> 24130286

Decision making in family medicine: randomized trial of the effects of the InfoClinique and Trip database search engines.

Michel Labrecque1, Stéphane Ratté, Pierre Frémont, Michel Cauchon, Jérôme Ouellet, William Hogg, Jessie McGowan, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Merlin Njoya, France Légaré.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of users of 2 medical search engines, InfoClinique and the Trip database, to provide correct answers to clinical questions and to explore the perceived effects of the tools on the clinical decision-making process.
DESIGN: Randomized trial.
SETTING: Three family medicine units of the family medicine program of the Faculty of Medicine at Laval University in Quebec city, Que. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen second-year family medicine residents. INTERVENTION: Residents generated 30 structured questions about therapy or preventive treatment (2 questions per resident) based on clinical encounters. Using an Internet platform designed for the trial, each resident answered 20 of these questions (their own 2, plus 18 of the questions formulated by other residents, selected randomly) before and after searching for information with 1 of the 2 search engines. For each question, 5 residents were randomly assigned to begin their search with InfoClinique and 5 with the Trip database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The ability of residents to provide correct answers to clinical questions using the search engines, as determined by third-party evaluation. After answering each question, participants completed a questionnaire to assess their perception of the engine's effect on the decision-making process in clinical practice.
RESULTS: Of 300 possible pairs of answers (1 answer before and 1 after the initial search), 254 (85%) were produced by 14 residents. Of these, 132 (52%) and 122 (48%) pairs of answers concerned questions that had been assigned an initial search with InfoClinique and the Trip database, respectively. Both engines produced an important and similar absolute increase in the proportion of correct answers after searching (26% to 62% for InfoClinique, for an increase of 36%; 24% to 63% for the Trip database, for an increase of 39%; P = .68). For all 30 clinical questions, at least 1 resident produced the correct answer after searching with either search engine. The mean (SD) time of the initial search for each question was 23.5 (7.6) minutes with InfoClinique and 22.3 (7.8) minutes with the Trip database (P = .30). Participants' perceptions of each engine's effect on the decision-making process were very positive and similar for both search engines.
CONCLUSION: Family medicine residents' ability to provide correct answers to clinical questions increased dramatically and similarly with the use of both InfoClinique and the Trip database. These tools have strong potential to increase the quality of medical care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24130286      PMCID: PMC3796978     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  25 in total

1.  Just in time information for clinicians: a questionnaire evaluation of the ATTRACT project.

Authors:  J Brassey; G Elwyn; C Price; P Kinnersley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-03-03

2.  Factors associated with successful answering of clinical questions using an information retrieval system.

Authors:  W R Hersh; M K Crabtree; D H Hickam; L Sacherek; L Rose; C P Friedman
Journal:  Bull Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2000-10

Review 3.  Knowledge translation: the role and place of practice reflection.

Authors:  Jocelyn Lockyer; S Tunde Gondocz; Robert L Thivierge
Journal:  J Contin Educ Health Prof       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.355

4.  Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature.

Authors:  Mark H Ebell; Jay Siwek; Barry D Weiss; Steven H Woolf; Jeffrey Susman; Bernard Ewigman; Marjorie Bowman
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Pract       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb

5.  Do online information retrieval systems help experienced clinicians answer clinical questions?

Authors:  Johanna I Westbrook; Enrico W Coiera; A Sophie Gosling
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2005-01-31       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 6.  Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: a literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies.

Authors:  Pierre Pluye; Roland M Grad; Lynn G Dunikowski; Randolph Stephenson
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.046

7.  Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D L Sackett; D J Cook
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-12-01       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care.

Authors:  J W Ely; J A Osheroff; M H Ebell; G R Bergus; B T Levy; M L Chambliss; E R Evans
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-08-07

Review 9.  Becoming an information master: a guidebook to the medical information jungle.

Authors:  A F Shaughnessy; D C Slawson; J H Bennett
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 0.493

10.  Information seeking in primary care: how physicians choose which clinical questions to pursue and which to leave unanswered.

Authors:  P N Gorman; M Helfand
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  1 in total

1.  Ambiguity Tolerance and Prospective Specialty Choice Among Third-Year Medical Students.

Authors:  Oksana Babenko; Delane Linkiewich; Kalee Lodewyk; Ann Lee
Journal:  PRiMER       Date:  2021-01-08
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.