IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamist/v64y2013i1p108-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Four levels of outcomes of information‐seeking: A mixed methods study in primary health care

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Pluye
  • Roland Grad
  • Carol Repchinsky
  • Barbara Jovaisas
  • Janique Johnson‐Lafleur
  • Marie‐Eve Carrier
  • Vera Granikov
  • Barbara Farrell
  • Charo Rodriguez
  • Gillian Bartlett
  • Carmen Loiselle
  • France Légaré

Abstract

Primary health care practitioners routinely search for information within electronic knowledge resources. We proposed four levels of outcomes of information‐seeking: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and patient health outcomes. Our objective was to produce clinical vignettes for describing and testing these levels. We conducted a mixed methods study combining a quantitative longitudinal study and a qualitative multiple case study. Participants were 10 nurses, 10 medical residents, and 10 pharmacists. They had access to an online resource, and did 793 searches for treatment recommendations. Using the Information Assessment Method (IAM), participants rated their searches for each of the four levels. Rated searches were examined in interviews guided by log reports and a think‐aloud protocol. Cases were defined as clearly described searches where clinical information was used for a specific patient. For each case, interviewees described the four levels of outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative data were merged into clinical vignettes. We produced 130 clinical vignettes. Specifically, 46 vignettes (35.4%) corresponded to clinical situations where information use was associated with one or more than one type of positive patient health outcome: increased patient knowledge (n = 28), avoidance of unnecessary or inappropriate intervention (n = 25), prevention of disease or health deterioration (n = 9), health improvement (n = 6), and increased patient satisfaction (n = 3). Results suggested information use was associated with perceived benefits for patients. This may encourage clinicians to search for information more often when they feel the need. Results supported the four proposed levels of outcomes, which can be transferable to other information‐seeking contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Pluye & Roland Grad & Carol Repchinsky & Barbara Jovaisas & Janique Johnson‐Lafleur & Marie‐Eve Carrier & Vera Granikov & Barbara Farrell & Charo Rodriguez & Gillian Bartlett & Carmen Loiselle , 2013. "Four levels of outcomes of information‐seeking: A mixed methods study in primary health care," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 108-125, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:64:y:2013:i:1:p:108-125
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.22793
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22793
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.22793?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ailian Zhang & Mengmeng Pan, 2020. "“Smart Process” of Medical Innovation: The Synergism Based on Network and Physical Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:64:y:2013:i:1:p:108-125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.