Maggio Lauren A, Moorhead Laura L, Willinsky John M
Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Department of Journalism, College of Liberal and Creative Arts, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, USA.
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 21;6(11):e012846. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012846.
To investigate the nature of physicians' use of research evidence in experimental conditions of open access to inform training and policy.
This qualitative study was a component of a larger mixed-methods initiative that provided 336 physicians with relatively complete access to research literature via PubMed and UpToDate, for 1 year via an online portal, with their usage recorded in web logs. Using a semistructured interview protocol, a subset of 38 physician participants were interviewed about their use of research articles in general and were probed about their reasons for accessing specific articles as identified through their web logs. Transcripts were analysed using a general inductive approach.
Physician participants were recruited from and registered in the USA.
38 physicians from 16 US states, engaged in 22 medical specialties, possessing more than 1 year of experience postresidency training participated.
26 participants attested to the value of consulting research literature within the context of the study by making reference to their roles as clinicians, educators, researchers, learners, administrators and advocates. The physicians reported previously encountering what they experienced as a prohibitive paywall barrier to the research literature and other frustrations with the nature of information systems, such as the need for passwords.
The findings, against the backdrop of growing open access to biomedical research, indicate that a minority of physicians, at least initially, is likely to seek out and use research and do so in a variety of common roles. Physicians' use of research in these roles has not traditionally been part of their training or part of the considerations for open access policies. The findings have implications for educational and policy initiatives directed towards increasing the effectiveness of this access to and use of research in improving the quality of healthcare.
在开放获取的实验条件下，调查医生使用研究证据的情况，以为培训和政策提供参考。
这项定性研究是一项更大规模混合方法倡议的一部分，该倡议通过在线门户为336名医生提供相对完整的研究文献获取渠道，为期1年，可通过PubMed和UpToDate获取，其使用情况记录在网络日志中。使用半结构化访谈协议，对38名医生参与者进行了访谈，了解他们一般使用研究文章的情况，并就通过网络日志确定的访问特定文章的原因进行了深入探讨。采用一般归纳法对访谈记录进行分析。
医生参与者从美国招募并注册。
来自美国16个州的38名医生，从事22个医学专业，拥有住院医师培训后1年以上的经验。
26名参与者通过提及他们作为临床医生、教育工作者、研究人员、学习者、管理人员和倡导者的角色，证明了在研究背景下查阅研究文献的价值。医生们报告说，他们以前遇到过研究文献付费墙过高的障碍，以及信息系统性质带来的其他问题，如需要密码。
在生物医学研究开放获取不断增加的背景下，研究结果表明，至少在最初阶段，少数医生可能会寻找并使用研究，并且在各种常见角色中都会这样做。医生在这些角色中使用研究传统上并不是他们培训的一部分，也不是开放获取政策考虑的一部分。这些发现对旨在提高获取和使用研究以改善医疗质量有效性的教育和政策倡议具有启示意义。
