Exploring the use and usability of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) 'Evidence in your inbox' e-mail alert service.

IF 2.2 4区医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Health Information and Libraries Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.1111/hir.12559

Jeremy Joelin Wong, Sweekriti Sharma, Alfred Wong, Anne M Moseley, Emre Ilhan

{"title":"Exploring the use and usability of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) 'Evidence in your inbox' e-mail alert service.","authors":"Jeremy Joelin Wong, Sweekriti Sharma, Alfred Wong, Anne M Moseley, Emre Ilhan","doi":"10.1111/hir.12559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate the use and useability of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database's 'Evidence in your inbox' e-mail alert service.Materials and methods: An explanatory sequential design consisting of a usage evaluation, cross-sectional survey, and semi-structured interviews. Usage was evaluated using routinely collected data from October 2015 to March 2021: number of subscribers, number of articles, open rates, and click-through rates. Subscribers were subdivided by level of engagement. All subscribers were invited to participate in a 17-question online survey. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subgroup of participants who completed the survey.Results: The service sent a minimum of 121 or a maximum of 431 articles, on average, each month across 15 feeds to 16,556 subscribers. Overtime, the rate of opening and clicking on links within e-mails decreased. Low engagers (62%) subscribed to 3.5 (95% CI 3.7-3.4) more feeds than high engagers (23%) and 2.8 (95% CI 3.0-2.6) more than moderate engagers (15%). Seventy-one subscribers completed the survey, 89% of whom were satisfied with the service and who thought it was an efficient way to be updated on evidence (98%). Six subscribers participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis of interviews identified five facilitators and four barriers to using the service, with three potential solutions to aid useability.Discussion and conclusion: The format and structure of the service may facilitate its use and usability. Addressing barriers of having too few or too many articles, and lack of time to read full articles may enhance the usability of 'Evidence in your inbox'.","PeriodicalId":47580,"journal":{"name":"Health Information and Libraries Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Information and Libraries Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12559","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the use and useability of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database's 'Evidence in your inbox' e-mail alert service.

Materials and methods: An explanatory sequential design consisting of a usage evaluation, cross-sectional survey, and semi-structured interviews. Usage was evaluated using routinely collected data from October 2015 to March 2021: number of subscribers, number of articles, open rates, and click-through rates. Subscribers were subdivided by level of engagement. All subscribers were invited to participate in a 17-question online survey. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subgroup of participants who completed the survey.

Results: The service sent a minimum of 121 or a maximum of 431 articles, on average, each month across 15 feeds to 16,556 subscribers. Overtime, the rate of opening and clicking on links within e-mails decreased. Low engagers (62%) subscribed to 3.5 (95% CI 3.7-3.4) more feeds than high engagers (23%) and 2.8 (95% CI 3.0-2.6) more than moderate engagers (15%). Seventy-one subscribers completed the survey, 89% of whom were satisfied with the service and who thought it was an efficient way to be updated on evidence (98%). Six subscribers participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis of interviews identified five facilitators and four barriers to using the service, with three potential solutions to aid useability.

Discussion and conclusion: The format and structure of the service may facilitate its use and usability. Addressing barriers of having too few or too many articles, and lack of time to read full articles may enhance the usability of 'Evidence in your inbox'.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Health Information and Libraries Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

6.70

自引率

10.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Health Information and Libraries Journal (HILJ) provides practitioners, researchers, and students in library and health professions an international and interdisciplinary forum. Its objectives are to encourage discussion and to disseminate developments at the frontiers of information management and libraries. A major focus is communicating practices that are evidence based both in managing information and in supporting health care. The Journal encompasses: - Identifying health information needs and uses - Managing programmes and services in the changing health environment - Information technology and applications in health - Educating and training health information professionals - Outreach to health user groups