构建检索前参考访谈:处理临床问题的有用技术。

A Booth, A J O'Rourke, N J Ford
{"title":"构建检索前参考访谈:处理临床问题的有用技术。","authors":"A Booth,&nbsp;A J O'Rourke,&nbsp;N J Ford","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To explore whether structuring a literature search request form according to an evidence-based medicine (EBM) anatomy elicits more information, improves precision of search results, and is acceptable to participating librarians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multicenter before-and-after study involved six different libraries. Data from 195 minimally structured forms collected over four months (Phase 1) were compared with data from 185 EBM-structured forms collected over a further four-month period following a brief training intervention (Phase 2). Survey of librarians' attitudes toward using the EBM-structured forms was conducted early during Phase 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>380 request forms, EBM-structured and minimally structured, were analyzed using SPSS. A statistically significant Pearson correlation was found between use of the EBM-structured form and complexity of the search strategy (P = 0.002). The correlation between clinical requests handled by the EBM-structured form and fewer items retrieved was also statistically significant (P = 0.028). However, librarians rated minimally structured forms more highly than EBM-structured forms against all dimensions except informativeness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although use of the EBM-structured forms is associated with more precise searches and more detailed search strategies, considerable work remains on making these forms acceptable to both librarians and users. Nevertheless, with increased familiarity and improved training, information retrieval benefits could be translated into more effective search practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":72483,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC35232/pdf/i0025-7338-088-03-0239.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Structuring the pre-search reference interview: a useful technique for handling clinical questions.\",\"authors\":\"A Booth,&nbsp;A J O'Rourke,&nbsp;N J Ford\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To explore whether structuring a literature search request form according to an evidence-based medicine (EBM) anatomy elicits more information, improves precision of search results, and is acceptable to participating librarians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multicenter before-and-after study involved six different libraries. Data from 195 minimally structured forms collected over four months (Phase 1) were compared with data from 185 EBM-structured forms collected over a further four-month period following a brief training intervention (Phase 2). Survey of librarians' attitudes toward using the EBM-structured forms was conducted early during Phase 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>380 request forms, EBM-structured and minimally structured, were analyzed using SPSS. A statistically significant Pearson correlation was found between use of the EBM-structured form and complexity of the search strategy (P = 0.002). The correlation between clinical requests handled by the EBM-structured form and fewer items retrieved was also statistically significant (P = 0.028). However, librarians rated minimally structured forms more highly than EBM-structured forms against all dimensions except informativeness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although use of the EBM-structured forms is associated with more precise searches and more detailed search strategies, considerable work remains on making these forms acceptable to both librarians and users. Nevertheless, with increased familiarity and improved training, information retrieval benefits could be translated into more effective search practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC35232/pdf/i0025-7338-088-03-0239.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨根据循证医学(EBM)解剖结构构建文献检索请求表是否能获得更多信息,提高检索结果的准确性,并为参与的图书馆员所接受。方法:对6家图书馆进行多中心前后对照研究。在四个月内(第一阶段)收集的195个最低结构表单的数据与在短暂培训干预后的四个月内(第二阶段)收集的185个ebm结构化表单的数据进行了比较。在第二阶段早期,对图书馆员对使用ebm结构化表单的态度进行了调查。结果:采用SPSS软件对380份申请表格进行分析。使用ebm结构形式与搜索策略的复杂性之间存在统计学上显著的Pearson相关性(P = 0.002)。ebm结构化表单处理的临床请求与检索条目较少之间的相关性也具有统计学意义(P = 0.028)。然而,除了信息量外,图书馆员对最低结构表单的评价高于ebm结构表单。结论:尽管ebm结构化表单的使用与更精确的搜索和更详细的搜索策略相关联,但要使这些表单为图书馆员和用户所接受,还有大量的工作要做。然而,随着熟悉程度的提高和训练的改进,信息检索的好处可以转化为更有效的搜索实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Structuring the pre-search reference interview: a useful technique for handling clinical questions.

Objectives: To explore whether structuring a literature search request form according to an evidence-based medicine (EBM) anatomy elicits more information, improves precision of search results, and is acceptable to participating librarians.

Methods: Multicenter before-and-after study involved six different libraries. Data from 195 minimally structured forms collected over four months (Phase 1) were compared with data from 185 EBM-structured forms collected over a further four-month period following a brief training intervention (Phase 2). Survey of librarians' attitudes toward using the EBM-structured forms was conducted early during Phase 2.

Results: 380 request forms, EBM-structured and minimally structured, were analyzed using SPSS. A statistically significant Pearson correlation was found between use of the EBM-structured form and complexity of the search strategy (P = 0.002). The correlation between clinical requests handled by the EBM-structured form and fewer items retrieved was also statistically significant (P = 0.028). However, librarians rated minimally structured forms more highly than EBM-structured forms against all dimensions except informativeness.

Conclusions: Although use of the EBM-structured forms is associated with more precise searches and more detailed search strategies, considerable work remains on making these forms acceptable to both librarians and users. Nevertheless, with increased familiarity and improved training, information retrieval benefits could be translated into more effective search practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信