Department of Anesthesia, Anesthesia Informatics and Media Lab, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Dr., Room H3580, MC5640, Stanford, CA 94305-2296, USA.
Anesth Analg. 2011 Feb;112(2):430-9. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182027a94. Epub 2010 Nov 16.
Despite the use of web-based information resources by both anesthesia departments and applicants, little research has been done to assess these resources and determine whether they are meeting applicant needs. Evidence is needed to guide anesthesia informatics research in developing high-quality anesthesia residency program Web sites (ARPWs).
We used an anonymous web-based program (SurveyMonkey, Portland, OR) to distribute a survey investigating the information needs and perceived usefulness of ARPWs to all 572 Stanford anesthesia residency program applicants. A quantitative scoring system was then created to assess the quality of ARPWs in meeting the information needs of these applicants. Two researchers independently analyzed all 131 ARPWs in the United States to determine whether the ARPWs met the needs of applicants based on the scoring system. Finally, a qualitative assessment of the overall user experience of ARPWs was developed to account for the subjective elements of the Web site's presentation.
Ninety-eight percent of respondents reported having used ARPWs during the application process. Fifty-six percent reported first visiting the Stanford ARPW when deciding whether to apply to Stanford's anesthesia residency program. Multimedia and Web 2.0 technologies were "very" or "most" useful in "learning intangible aspects of a program, like how happy people are" (42% multimedia and Web 2.0 versus 14% text and photos). ARPWs, on average, contained only 46% of the content items identified as important by applicants. The average (SD) quality scores among all ARPWs was 2.06 (0.59) of 4.0 maximum points. The mean overall qualitative score for all 131 ARPWs was 4.97 (1.92) of 10 points. Only 2% of applicants indicated that the majority (75%-100%) of Web sites they visited provided a complete experience.
Anesthesia residency applicants rely heavily on ARPWs to research programs, prepare for interviews, and formulate a rank list. Anesthesia departments can improve their ARPWs by including information such as total hours worked and work hours by rotation (missing in 96% and 97% of ARPWs) and providing a valid web address on the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System (FREIDA) (missing in 28% of ARPWs).
尽管麻醉部门和申请人都在使用基于网络的信息资源,但很少有研究评估这些资源并确定它们是否满足申请人的需求。需要有证据来指导麻醉信息学研究,以开发高质量的麻醉住院医师项目网站(ARPW)。
我们使用了一个匿名的基于网络的程序(SurveyMonkey,波特兰,OR)向所有 572 名斯坦福麻醉住院医师项目申请人分发了一项调查,调查他们对 ARPW 的信息需求和感知有用性。然后创建了一个定量评分系统来评估 ARPW 满足这些申请人信息需求的质量。两位研究人员独立分析了美国的 131 个 ARPW,以根据评分系统确定 ARPW 是否满足申请人的需求。最后,对 ARPW 的整体用户体验进行了定性评估,以考虑网站呈现的主观因素。
98%的受访者表示在申请过程中使用过 ARPW。56%的受访者表示在决定是否申请斯坦福麻醉住院医师项目时首先访问了斯坦福 ARPW。多媒体和 Web 2.0 技术在“了解项目的无形方面非常有用,例如人们有多快乐”(42%的多媒体和 Web 2.0 与 14%的文本和照片)。ARPW 仅包含申请人认为重要的内容项目的 46%。所有 ARPW 的平均(SD)质量评分为 4.0 分中的 2.06(0.59)分。所有 131 个 ARPW 的平均整体定性评分为 10 分中的 4.97(1.92)分。只有 2%的申请人表示他们访问的大多数(75%-100%)网站提供了完整的体验。
麻醉住院医师申请人严重依赖 ARPW 来研究项目、准备面试和制定排名名单。麻醉部门可以通过在 ARPW 中包含信息(如总工作时间和轮班工作时间(96%和 97%的 ARPW 中缺失)以及在 Fellowship 和 Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System(FREIDA)上提供有效的网址(28%的 ARPW 中缺失)来改进他们的 ARPW。