Literature DB >> 30143529

Young Kidney Professionals' Perspectives and Attitudes about Consuming Scientific Information: A Focus Group Study.

Allison Tong1,2, Deidra C Crews3, Jane O Schell4, Ian H de Boer5, Michel Chonchol6, Rajnish Mehrotra5.   

Abstract

The digital era has seen rapid changes in how information is consumed. Traditional dissemination of scholarly work through biomedical journals may not be optimally tailored to the preferences of younger clinicians and researchers. We aimed to describe the perspectives of young clinicians and researchers in kidney disease on consuming scientific information. Three focus groups were conducted during the 2017 American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week with a total of 29 nephrologists and researchers (ages 40 years old and younger) purposively sampled through our networks and the American Society of Nephrology registration database. Data were analyzed thematically. Of the 72 participants invited, 29 participated from 28 centers across 13 countries. Five themes were identified: capturing and retaining attention (with subthemes of triggering interest, optimizing readability, and navigation to sustain motivation); having discernible relevance (resonating with clinical and research interests, supporting professional development, action-oriented and readily applicable, able to disseminate, contextualizing the study, and filtering out informational noise); immediacy and efficiency in processing information (requiring instantaneous and easy access, enabling rapid understanding, and facilitating comprehension of complex concepts); trusting legitimate and credible sources (authoritative indicator of importance and quality, reputable experts broadening perspective, certainty and confidence with collegial input, accurate framing and translation of the message, ascertaining methodologic detail and nuances, and integrating the patient perspective); and social dialoguing and debate. Immediate and digitally optimized access motivated young kidney professionals to consume scientific information. Mechanisms that enable them to distil relevant and new evidence, appraise and apply information to clinical practice and research, disseminate studies to colleagues, and engage in discussion and debate may enhance their comprehension, confidence, interpretation, and use of scientific literature.
Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attention; Attitude; Comprehension; Focus Groups; Kidney Diseases; Motivation; Nephrologists; Orientation, Spatial; Research; Research Personnel; nephrology; renal failure

Year:  2018        PMID: 30143529      PMCID: PMC6218813          DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01760218

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol        ISSN: 1555-9041            Impact factor:   8.237


  24 in total

1.  Knowledge Translation for Education Journals in the Digital Age.

Authors:  Deborah Simpson; Gail M Sullivan
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2015-09

2.  Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

Authors:  Allison Tong; Peter Sainsbury; Jonathan Craig
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 2.038

Review 3.  Portals, blogs and co.: the role of the Internet as a medium of science communication.

Authors:  Klaus Minol; Gerd Spelsberg; Elisabeth Schulte; Nicholas Morris
Journal:  Biotechnol J       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  Medical publishing in a digital world: New World, new standards?

Authors:  Paul Schoenhagen; Lorraine E Ferris; Margaret A Winker
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2012-12

5.  The Transplantation Journal on Social Media: The @TransplantJrnl Journey From Impact Factor to Klout Score.

Authors:  Carla C Baan; Frank J M F Dor
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.939

6.  Science communication: From page to screen.

Authors:  Kendall Powell
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Public communication of science 2.0: Is the communication of science via the "new media" online a genuine transformation or old wine in new bottles?

Authors:  Hans Peter Peters; Sharon Dunwoody; Joachim Allgaier; Yin-Yueh Lo; Dominique Brossard
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 8.807

8.  Value of social media in advancing surgical research.

Authors:  J Mayol; J Dziakova
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  CJASN: What's Behind and What's Ahead.

Authors:  Rajnish Mehrotra; Michel Chonchol; Ian de Boer
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 8.237

10.  Radiologists' perspectives about evidence-based medicine and their clinical practice: a semistructured interview study.

Authors:  Allison Tong; Suzanne E Mahady; Jonathan C Craig; Gabes Lau; Anthony J Peduto; Clement Loy
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.