| Title |
How do junior medical officers use online information resources? A survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-016-0645-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heng Teck Chong, Michael James Weightman, Peranada Sirichai, Alison Jones |
| Abstract |
Online information resources function dually as important learning tools and sources of the latest evidence-based recommendations for junior medical officers (JMOs). However, little is currently known about how JMOs utilise this information when providing care for their patients. This study aimed to examine the usage and experience of online information resources amongst JMOs in South Australia to ascertain (i) the type of resources accessed, (ii) the frequency, (iii) the intended purpose, and (iv) the perceived reliability. A survey instrument using multiple choices, five-point Likert scales and free-text comments was developed and distributed through SurveyMonkey to South Australian JMOs between 1 May 2014 and 30 June 2014. Of the 142 surveyed, 100 JMOs (70.4 %) used online information resources as their first approach over all other resources available. JMOs overwhelmingly (94.4 %, n = 134) used online information resources at least once per day, with the most frequent purpose for use being information regarding prescription medication (82.4 %, n = 117, reported 'very frequent' use). JMOs stated online resources were necessary to perform their work and, of the different types of information accessed, they rated peer-reviewed resources as the most reliable. JMOs strongly rely upon online clinical information in their everyday practice. Importantly, provision of these resources assists JMOs in their education and clinical performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
| France | 1 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Librarian | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 38% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2016.
All research outputs
#6,642,268
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,120
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,062
of 301,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#33
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.