↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge transfer: what drug information would specialist doctors need to support their clinical practice? Results of a survey and of three focus groups in Italy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Knowledge transfer: what drug information would specialist doctors need to support their clinical practice? Results of a survey and of three focus groups in Italy
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0355-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giulio Formoso, Paolo Rizzini, Maurizio Bassi, Paolo Bonfanti, Giuliano Rizzardini, Annalisa Campomori, Paola Mosconi

Abstract

The wide offer of information on pharmaceuticals does not often fulfill physicians' needs: problems of relevance, access, quality and applicability are widely recognized, and doctors often rely on their own experience and expert opinions rather than on available evidence. A quali-quantitative research was carried out in Italy to provide an overview on information seeking behavior and information needs of doctors, in particular of infectious disease specialists, and to suggest an action plan for improving relevance, quality and usability of scientific information. We did a quantitative survey and three focus groups. Two hundred infectious disease specialists answered a 24-item questionnaire aimed at investigating features of scientific information they receive and their ratings about its completeness, quality and usability. Subsequent focus groups, each involving eight specialists, investigated their opinions on information sources and materials, and their suggestions on how these could better support their information needs. The quantitative survey indicated doctors' appreciation of traditional channels (especially drug representatives) and information materials (brochures), but also their attitude to autonomous search of information and their wish to have more digital channels available. Focus groups provided more depth and, not surprisingly, revealed that physicians consider critical to get complete, comparative and specific information quickly, but also that they would like to discuss their doubts with expert colleagues. Quite strikingly, limited concerns were expressed on information validity, potential biases and conflicts of interests, as scientific validity seems to be related to the perceived authoritativeness of information sources rather than to the availability of a transparent evaluation framework. Although this research investigated views of infectious disease specialists, we believe that their opinions and perceived needs should not substantially differ from those of other clinicians, either in primary or in secondary care. In participants' view, the ideal information framework should provide quick and tailored answers through available evidence and favor the exchange of information between practitioners and trusted experts. The general consensus existing within the scientific and medical community on the need for integrating available evidence and experience is confirmed, although the issues of information validity and conflicts of interests seem definitely overlooked.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Professor 4 11%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,331,299
of 8,485,607 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#972
of 996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,953
of 254,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#27
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,485,607 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 996 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 254,067 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.