搜索系统如何影响系统搜索?定性研究。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Andy Hickner
{"title":"搜索系统如何影响系统搜索?定性研究。","authors":"Andy Hickner","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2023.1647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis projects require systematic search methods. Search systems require several essential attributes to support systematic searching; however, many systems used in evidence synthesis fail to meet one or more of these requirements. I undertook a qualitative study to examine the effects of these limitations on systematic searching and how searchers select information sources for evidence synthesis projects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Qualitative data were collected from interviews with twelve systematic searchers. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>I used thematic analysis to identify two key themes relating to search systems: systems shape search processes, and systematic searching occurs within the information market. Many systems required for systematic reviews, in particular sources of unpublished studies, are not designed for systematic searching. Participants described various workarounds for the limitations they encounter in these systems. Economic factors influence searchers' selection of sources to search, as well as the degree to which vendors prioritize these users.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Interviews with systematic searchers suggest priorities for improving search systems, and barriers to improvement that must be overcome. Vendors must understand the unique requirements of systematic searching and recognize systematic searchers as a distinct group of users. Better interfaces and improved functionality will result in more efficient evidence synthesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10621724/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do search systems impact systematic searching? A qualitative study.\",\"authors\":\"Andy Hickner\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/jmla.2023.1647\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis projects require systematic search methods. Search systems require several essential attributes to support systematic searching; however, many systems used in evidence synthesis fail to meet one or more of these requirements. I undertook a qualitative study to examine the effects of these limitations on systematic searching and how searchers select information sources for evidence synthesis projects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Qualitative data were collected from interviews with twelve systematic searchers. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>I used thematic analysis to identify two key themes relating to search systems: systems shape search processes, and systematic searching occurs within the information market. Many systems required for systematic reviews, in particular sources of unpublished studies, are not designed for systematic searching. Participants described various workarounds for the limitations they encounter in these systems. Economic factors influence searchers' selection of sources to search, as well as the degree to which vendors prioritize these users.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Interviews with systematic searchers suggest priorities for improving search systems, and barriers to improvement that must be overcome. Vendors must understand the unique requirements of systematic searching and recognize systematic searchers as a distinct group of users. Better interfaces and improved functionality will result in more efficient evidence synthesis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10621724/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1647\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1647","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:系统审查和其他证据综合项目需要系统的搜索方法。搜索系统需要几个基本属性来支持系统搜索;然而,在证据合成中使用的许多系统不能满足这些要求中的一个或多个。我进行了一项定性研究,以检查这些限制对系统搜索的影响,以及搜索者如何为证据综合项目选择信息来源。方法:通过对12名系统搜索者的访谈收集定性数据。数据采用反身主题分析法进行分析。结果:我使用主题分析来确定与搜索系统相关的两个关键主题:系统塑造搜索过程,以及信息市场中的系统搜索。系统综述所需的许多系统,特别是未发表研究的来源,并不是为系统搜索而设计的。参与者描述了他们在这些系统中遇到的各种限制的解决方案。经济因素影响搜索者对搜索来源的选择,以及供应商对这些用户的优先级。结论:对系统搜索者的访谈表明了改进搜索系统的优先事项,以及必须克服的改进障碍。供应商必须了解系统搜索的独特要求,并将系统搜索者视为一组独特的用户。更好的接口和改进的功能将导致更有效的证据合成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How do search systems impact systematic searching? A qualitative study.

Objective: Systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis projects require systematic search methods. Search systems require several essential attributes to support systematic searching; however, many systems used in evidence synthesis fail to meet one or more of these requirements. I undertook a qualitative study to examine the effects of these limitations on systematic searching and how searchers select information sources for evidence synthesis projects.

Methods: Qualitative data were collected from interviews with twelve systematic searchers. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: I used thematic analysis to identify two key themes relating to search systems: systems shape search processes, and systematic searching occurs within the information market. Many systems required for systematic reviews, in particular sources of unpublished studies, are not designed for systematic searching. Participants described various workarounds for the limitations they encounter in these systems. Economic factors influence searchers' selection of sources to search, as well as the degree to which vendors prioritize these users.

Conclusion: Interviews with systematic searchers suggest priorities for improving search systems, and barriers to improvement that must be overcome. Vendors must understand the unique requirements of systematic searching and recognize systematic searchers as a distinct group of users. Better interfaces and improved functionality will result in more efficient evidence synthesis.

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
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
×
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