Dataset Information

Access of primary and secondary literature by health personnel in an academic health center: implications for open access.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The research sought to ascertain the types and quantity of research evidence accessed by health personnel through PubMed and UpToDate in a university medical center over the course of a year in order to better estimate the impact that increasing levels of open access to biomedical research can be expected to have on clinical practice in the years ahead. METHODS: Web log data were gathered from the 5,042 health personnel working in the Stanford University Hospitals (SUH) during 2011. Data were analyzed for access to the primary literature (abstracts and full-text) through PubMed and UpToDate and to the secondary literature, represented by UpToDate (research summaries), to establish the frequency and nature of literature consulted. RESULTS: In 2011, SUH health personnel accessed 81,851 primary literature articles and visited UpToDate 110,336 times. Almost a third of the articles (24,529) accessed were reviews. Twenty percent (16,187) of the articles viewed were published in 2011. CONCLUSION: When it is available, health personnel in a clinical care setting frequently access the primary literature. While further studies are needed, this preliminary finding speaks to the value of the National Institutes of Health public access policy and the need for medical librarians and educators to prepare health personnel for increasing public access to medical research.

SUBMITTER: Maggio LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3738081 | biostudies-other | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Access of primary and secondary literature by health personnel in an academic health center: implications for open access.

Maggio Lauren A LA Steinberg Ryan M RM Moorhead Laura L O'Brien Bridget B Willinsky John J

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20130701 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>The research sought to ascertain the types and quantity of research evidence accessed by health personnel through PubMed and UpToDate in a university medical center over the course of a year in order to better estimate the impact that increasing levels of open access to biomedical research can be expected to have on clinical practice in the years ahead.<h4>Methods</h4>Web log data were gathered from the 5,042 health personnel working in the Stanford University Hospitals (SUH) dur ...[more]

PMID: 23930091

Similar Datasets

Project description:Incivilities are pervasive among workers in healthcare institutions. Previously identified effects include deterioration of employee physical and mental health, absenteeism, burnout, and turnover, as well as reduced patient safety and quality of care. This study documented factors related to organizational civility at an academic health sciences center (AHSC) as the basis for future intervention work. We used a cross-sectional research design to conduct an online survey at four of five campuses of an AHSC. Using the Organizational Civility Scale (OCS), we assessed differences across gender, race (White and non-White) and job type (faculty or staff) in the eleven subscales (frequency of incivility, perceptions of organizational climate, existence of civility resources, importance of civility resources, feelings about current employment, employee satisfaction, sources of stress, coping strategies, overall levels of stress/coping ability, and overall civility rating). Significant gender differences were found in six of the eleven subscales: perception of organizational climate (p < .001), existence of civility resources (p = .001), importance of civility resources (p < .001), frequency of incivilities (p < .001), employee satisfaction (p = .002), and overall civility rating (p = .007). Significant differences between respondents by self-identified race were found only in one subscale: existence of civility resources (p = .048). Significant differences were found between faculty and staff in four subscales: perception of organizational climate (p = .001), importance of civility resources (p = .02), employee satisfaction (p = .01), and overall levels of stress (p = .03). Results suggest that gender and employment type differences exist in the perception of organizational climate at the academic health center, while significant racial differences only occurred in reference to reported existence of civility resources. Attention to these differences should be incorporated into the development of programs to address the problem.

Project description:In 1982, the Annals of Virology published a paper showing how Liberia has a highly endemic potential of Ebola warning health authorities of the risk for potential outbreaks; this journal is only available by subscription. Limiting the accessibility of such knowledge may have reduced information propagation toward public health actors who were indeed surprised by and unprepared for the 2014 epidemic. Open access (OA) publication can allow for increased access to global health research (GHR). Our study aims to assess the use, cost and impact of OA diffusion in the context of GHR.A total of 3366 research articles indexed under the Medical Heading Subject Heading "Global Health" published between 2010 and 2014 were retrieved using PubMed to (1) quantify the uptake of various types of OA, (2) estimate the article processing charges (APCs) of OA, and (3) analyse the relationship between different types of OA, their scholarly impact and gross national income per capita of citing countries.Most GHR publications are not available directly on the journal's website (69%). Further, 60.8% of researchers do not self-archive their work even when it is free and in keeping with journal policy. The total amount paid for APCs was estimated at US$1.7 million for 627 papers, with authors paying on average US$2732 per publication; 94% of APCs were paid to journals owned by the ten most prominent publication houses from high-income countries. Researchers from low- and middle-income countries are generally citing less expensive types of OA, while researchers in high-income countries are citing the most expensive OA.Although OA may help in building global research capacity in GHR, the majority of publications remain subscription only. It is logical and cost-efficient for institutions and researchers to promote OA by self-archiving publications of restricted access, as it not only allows research to be cited by a broader audience, it also augments citation rates. Although OA does not ensure full knowledge transfer from research to practice, limiting public access can negatively impact implementation and outcomes of health policy and reduce public understanding of health issues.

Project description:Ongoing debates surrounding Open Access to the scholarly literature are multifaceted and complicated by disparate and often polarised viewpoints from engaged stakeholders. At the current stage, Open Access has become such a global issue that it is critical for all involved in scholarly publishing, including policymakers, publishers, research funders, governments, learned societies, librarians, and academic communities, to be well-informed on the history, benefits, and pitfalls of Open Access. In spite of this, there is a general lack of consensus regarding the potential pros and cons of Open Access at multiple levels. This review aims to be a resource for current knowledge on the impacts of Open Access by synthesizing important research in three major areas: academic, economic and societal. While there is clearly much scope for additional research, several key trends are identified, including a broad citation advantage for researchers who publish openly, as well as additional benefits to the non-academic dissemination of their work. The economic impact of Open Access is less well-understood, although it is clear that access to the research literature is key for innovative enterprises, and a range of governmental and non-governmental services. Furthermore, Open Access has the potential to save both publishers and research funders considerable amounts of financial resources, and can provide some economic benefits to traditionally subscription-based journals. The societal impact of Open Access is strong, in particular for advancing citizen science initiatives, and leveling the playing field for researchers in developing countries. Open Access supersedes all potential alternative modes of access to the scholarly literature through enabling unrestricted re-use, and long-term stability independent of financial constraints of traditional publishers that impede knowledge sharing. However, Open Access has the potential to become unsustainable for research communities if high-cost options are allowed to continue to prevail in a widely unregulated scholarly publishing market. Open Access remains only one of the multiple challenges that the scholarly publishing system is currently facing. Yet, it provides one foundation for increasing engagement with researchers regarding ethical standards of publishing and the broader implications of 'Open Research'.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of medical radiation in diagnosis and procedural and surgical treatment is increasing. Therefore, healthcare personnel should be adequately aware and knowledgeable about radiation hazards to protect themselves and their patients from its adverse effects. The objective of this study was to examine awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about protection methods among the anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists of a quaternary care academic center.MethodsA validated questionnaire was completed by anesthetic personnel and surgical subspecialists. It consisted of questions that required demographic information and assessed awareness about radiation hazards. In addition, 15 multiple-choice questions assessed knowledge about radiation across the following domains: the main principle of radiation protection, personal annual radiation dose, personal protection equipment, safe distance from an X-ray machine, and susceptible organs.ResultsA total of 270 potential participants were emailed and invited to respond to an online questionnaire, and the response rate was 79.3%. Of the 214 participants, 69.2% were women; the mean age of the sample was 34.8 years. Most of the participants (63.1%) considered radiation exposure that occurs as a part of daily work to be very harmful; 86.4% and 78.5% reported that they always wore a lead apron and a thyroid shield when working in an environment that entails radiation exposure, respectively. The mean score for knowledge about radiation hazards and protection was 6.4 ± 2.0 (maximum possible score = 15) Therefore, there is a need to improve anesthetic personnel and surgical subspecialists' knowledge about radiation protection, especially with regard to the use of lead goggles and harmful doses of radiation.ConclusionThe present findings suggest that there is a reasonable level of awareness but a relative lack of knowledge about radiation hazards and protection among anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists. Therefore, continuing medical education on radiation hazards and protection must be mandated.

Project description:IntroductionTransitions of care experiences leave patients vulnerable to adverse outcomes, including readmissions, worsening symptoms, and reductions in functional status.AimTo describe and evaluate a primary care transitions clinic that serves patients with medical and/or social needs that must be addressed prior to establishment of primary care.SettingBrigham Health, an academic medical center in Boston, MA.Program descriptionThe transitions clinic opened within an existing primary care practice in January 2019. It employs one full-time nurse care coordinator and one full-time medical assistant, and is staffed by one primary care physician (PCP) or nurse practitioner each weekday afternoon. Both medical and social diagnoses that require follow-up post-discharge are addressed. Patients with any insurance are seen as many times as necessary until PCP care is established.Program evaluationIn the year after its establishment (January 20, 2019, to January 19, 2020), the transitions clinic received 498 referrals (73.2% from the emergency department (ED), 23.3% from inpatient), with 207 patients ultimately seen. Patients were seen 5 (median; IQR 4-6) work days post-discharge, with 2 (median; IQR 1-3) visits per patient. Patients seen in the transitions clinic had significantly fewer ED visits than a comparator cohort referred to Brigham Health Primary Care after ED or hospital discharge in the year prior (January 20, 2018, to January 20, 2019). Patients seen in the transitions clinic additionally had significantly fewer ED visits and hospitalizations in the three months post-referral than in the three months pre-referral. The most common social determinants addressed by the clinic's nurse coordinator were insurance, transportation, and housing.DiscussionA primary care transitions clinic can provide accessible, attentive care post-discharge with positive effects on healthcare utilization. Availability of a multidisciplinary team that can see patients for repeated visits until establishment of PCP care was a key success factor for the transitions clinic.

Dataset Information

Access of primary and secondary literature by health personnel in an academic health center: implications for open access.

Publications

Access of primary and secondary literature by health personnel in an academic health center: implications for open access.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure