Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders

J. W. Williamson, P. S. German, R. Weiss, Elizabeth A Skinner, F. Bowes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To identify self-perceived problems in managing science information needs of U.S. primary practitioners and their opinion leaders. Sample: A two-stage random sample of the American Medical Association's 'Masterlist of Physicians' to identify 625 office-based physicians, including general practice, family practice, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics, and 100 physician opinion leaders. Data Collection: A formal telephone survey was completed for 79% of practitioners and 90% of opinion leaders sampled, using a pretested instrument applied by trained telephone surveyors. Results of Data Analysis: Both practitioners and opinion leaders claimed that published reviews were the most useful means of identifying their information needs. When asked about use of six recent clinical advances, that is, 'markers', for example, hemoglobin-A1C for diabetic control, as many as one fifty to one half were not using or were not aware of such an advance. Less than 1 in 3 practitioners personally searched the literature when information was neded; 2 in 3 claimed literature volume was unmanagemeable; 9 of 10 practitioners and opinion leaders assessed the scientific value of literature obtained, primarily from their own experience, with less than 1 in 10 contacting research methods specialists. Respondents suggested various innovations to better manage their science information needs in the future. Conclusions: Primary practitioners require substantial help in meeting current science information needs. Increase in such resources as 'validated reviews' or 'expert networks' might help meet these needs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)151-160
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume110
Issue number2
StatePublished - 1989
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health Information Management
Information Science
Continuing Education
Primary Health Care
Physicians
Telephone
Family Practice
American Medical Association
Internal Medicine
Gynecology
General Practitioners
Obstetrics
Hemoglobins
Pediatrics
Research
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders. / Williamson, J. W.; German, P. S.; Weiss, R.; Skinner, Elizabeth A; Bowes, F.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 110, No. 2, 1989, p. 151-160.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d6ccdfaae4ce4becb0cfb202aa6e1aab,
title = "Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders",
abstract = "Purpose: To identify self-perceived problems in managing science information needs of U.S. primary practitioners and their opinion leaders. Sample: A two-stage random sample of the American Medical Association's 'Masterlist of Physicians' to identify 625 office-based physicians, including general practice, family practice, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics, and 100 physician opinion leaders. Data Collection: A formal telephone survey was completed for 79{\%} of practitioners and 90{\%} of opinion leaders sampled, using a pretested instrument applied by trained telephone surveyors. Results of Data Analysis: Both practitioners and opinion leaders claimed that published reviews were the most useful means of identifying their information needs. When asked about use of six recent clinical advances, that is, 'markers', for example, hemoglobin-A1C for diabetic control, as many as one fifty to one half were not using or were not aware of such an advance. Less than 1 in 3 practitioners personally searched the literature when information was neded; 2 in 3 claimed literature volume was unmanagemeable; 9 of 10 practitioners and opinion leaders assessed the scientific value of literature obtained, primarily from their own experience, with less than 1 in 10 contacting research methods specialists. Respondents suggested various innovations to better manage their science information needs in the future. Conclusions: Primary practitioners require substantial help in meeting current science information needs. Increase in such resources as 'validated reviews' or 'expert networks' might help meet these needs.",
author = "Williamson, {J. W.} and German, {P. S.} and R. Weiss and Skinner, {Elizabeth A} and F. Bowes",
year = "1989",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "110",
pages = "151--160",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders

AU - Williamson, J. W.

AU - German, P. S.

AU - Weiss, R.

AU - Skinner, Elizabeth A

AU - Bowes, F.

PY - 1989

Y1 - 1989

N2 - Purpose: To identify self-perceived problems in managing science information needs of U.S. primary practitioners and their opinion leaders. Sample: A two-stage random sample of the American Medical Association's 'Masterlist of Physicians' to identify 625 office-based physicians, including general practice, family practice, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics, and 100 physician opinion leaders. Data Collection: A formal telephone survey was completed for 79% of practitioners and 90% of opinion leaders sampled, using a pretested instrument applied by trained telephone surveyors. Results of Data Analysis: Both practitioners and opinion leaders claimed that published reviews were the most useful means of identifying their information needs. When asked about use of six recent clinical advances, that is, 'markers', for example, hemoglobin-A1C for diabetic control, as many as one fifty to one half were not using or were not aware of such an advance. Less than 1 in 3 practitioners personally searched the literature when information was neded; 2 in 3 claimed literature volume was unmanagemeable; 9 of 10 practitioners and opinion leaders assessed the scientific value of literature obtained, primarily from their own experience, with less than 1 in 10 contacting research methods specialists. Respondents suggested various innovations to better manage their science information needs in the future. Conclusions: Primary practitioners require substantial help in meeting current science information needs. Increase in such resources as 'validated reviews' or 'expert networks' might help meet these needs.

AB - Purpose: To identify self-perceived problems in managing science information needs of U.S. primary practitioners and their opinion leaders. Sample: A two-stage random sample of the American Medical Association's 'Masterlist of Physicians' to identify 625 office-based physicians, including general practice, family practice, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics, and 100 physician opinion leaders. Data Collection: A formal telephone survey was completed for 79% of practitioners and 90% of opinion leaders sampled, using a pretested instrument applied by trained telephone surveyors. Results of Data Analysis: Both practitioners and opinion leaders claimed that published reviews were the most useful means of identifying their information needs. When asked about use of six recent clinical advances, that is, 'markers', for example, hemoglobin-A1C for diabetic control, as many as one fifty to one half were not using or were not aware of such an advance. Less than 1 in 3 practitioners personally searched the literature when information was neded; 2 in 3 claimed literature volume was unmanagemeable; 9 of 10 practitioners and opinion leaders assessed the scientific value of literature obtained, primarily from their own experience, with less than 1 in 10 contacting research methods specialists. Respondents suggested various innovations to better manage their science information needs in the future. Conclusions: Primary practitioners require substantial help in meeting current science information needs. Increase in such resources as 'validated reviews' or 'expert networks' might help meet these needs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024552776&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024552776&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 110

SP - 151

EP - 160

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 2

ER -