Lorie Andrea Kloda1, Joan C Bartlett1. 1. lorie.kloda@mcgill.ca Associate Librarian, McGill University Library, McLennan Library Building, 3459 McTavish Street, Montreal, QC H3A 0C9, Canada; joan.bartlett@mcgill.ca Associate Professor, McGill University School of Information Studies, 3661 Peel Street, Montreal, QC H3A 1X1, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explored the information needs of rehabilitation therapists (occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists) working with patients who have had strokes in order to characterize their clinical questions, defined as their formalized information needs arising in the context of everyday clinical practice. METHODS: The researchers took a constructivist, interpretive approach, in which fifteen rehabilitation therapists working in various settings were recruited. Data were gathered using diaries, followed by diary-guided interviews, and thematically analyzed using template analysis. RESULTS: Rehabilitation therapists' clinical questions were characterized as having one or more of twelve foci and containing one or more of eight possible structural elements. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate that the evidence-based practice framework currently applied for questions relating to rehabilitation is inadequate for representing rehabilitation therapists' clinical questions. A new framework that is more comprehensive and descriptive is proposed. IMPLICATIONS: Librarians working with students and clinicians in rehabilitation can employ knowledge of the twelve foci and the question structure for rehabilitation to guide the reference interview. Instruction on question formulation in evidence-based practice can employ the revised structure for rehabilitation, offering students and clinicians an alternative to the traditional patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) structure. Information products, including bibliographic databases and synopsis services, can tailor their interfaces according to question foci and prompt users to enter search terms corresponding to any of the eight possible elements found in rehabilitation therapists' clinical questions.
OBJECTIVE: This study explored the information needs of rehabilitation therapists (occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists) working with patients who have had strokes in order to characterize their clinical questions, defined as their formalized information needs arising in the context of everyday clinical practice. METHODS: The researchers took a constructivist, interpretive approach, in which fifteen rehabilitation therapists working in various settings were recruited. Data were gathered using diaries, followed by diary-guided interviews, and thematically analyzed using template analysis. RESULTS: Rehabilitation therapists' clinical questions were characterized as having one or more of twelve foci and containing one or more of eight possible structural elements. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate that the evidence-based practice framework currently applied for questions relating to rehabilitation is inadequate for representing rehabilitation therapists' clinical questions. A new framework that is more comprehensive and descriptive is proposed. IMPLICATIONS: Librarians working with students and clinicians in rehabilitation can employ knowledge of the twelve foci and the question structure for rehabilitation to guide the reference interview. Instruction on question formulation in evidence-based practice can employ the revised structure for rehabilitation, offering students and clinicians an alternative to the traditional patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) structure. Information products, including bibliographic databases and synopsis services, can tailor their interfaces according to question foci and prompt users to enter search terms corresponding to any of the eight possible elements found in rehabilitation therapists' clinical questions.
Authors: John W Ely; Jerome A Osheroff; M Lee Chambliss; Mark H Ebell; Marcy E Rosenbaum Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2004-11-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Martin Dawes; William Summerskill; Paul Glasziou; Antonino Cartabellotta; Janet Martin; Kevork Hopayian; Franz Porzsolt; Amanda Burls; James Osborne Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2005-01-05 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Thomas Maribo; Kirsten S Petersen; Charlotte Handberg; Hanne Melchiorsen; Anne-Mette H Momsen; Claus V Nielsen; Matilde Leonardi; Merete Labriola Journal: J Clin Med Res Date: 2015-12-03