Evaluating information prescriptions in two clinical environments

National Network of Libraries of Medicine, Middle Atlantic Region, New York University Langone Medical Center,New York, NY 10010, USA.
Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA (Impact Factor: 0.99). 07/2011; 99(3):237-46. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.011
Source: PubMed


The research sought to evaluate whether providing personalized information services by libraries can improve satisfaction with information services for specific types of patients.
Adult breast cancer (BrCa) clinic patients and mothers of inpatient neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients were randomized to receive routine information services (control) or an IRx intervention.
The BrCa trial randomized 211 patients and the NICU trial, 88 mothers. The BrCa trial showed no statistically significant differences in satisfaction ratings between the treatment and control groups. The IRx group in the NICU trial reported higher satisfaction than the control group regarding information received about diagnosis, treatments, respiratory tradeoffs, and medication tradeoffs. BrCa patients posed questions to librarians more frequently than did NICU mothers, and a higher percentage reported using the website. Questions asked of the librarians by BrCa patients were predominantly clinical and focused on the areas of treatment and side effects.
Study results provide some evidence to support further efforts to both implement information prescription projects in selected settings and to conduct additional research on the costs and benefits of services.

Download full-text


Available from: Kathleen Burr Oliver,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose ‐ The objective of this study is to find out physicians' attitudes towards prescribing information to patients and the barriers they may face regarding IPs to patients. Design/methodology/approach ‐ A cross-sectional survey of 176 physicians working as clinical faculty members of the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences about the information prescription service (IPs) was undertaken using a structured and validated questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and a Fisher's exact test or chi square test were used to analyze data. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. All data were analyzed using SPSS.17.0. Findings ‐ The study found that physicians are positive about providing IPs. Most of the specialists, i.e. 95.4 per cent (n=167) completely agreed with prescribing information to patients. The physicians rated barriers that they may face in offering IPs. Majority of the specialists 97 per cent (n=174) acknowledged that patients have the right to receive IPs while being seen by healthcare providers. The study did not find significant association between specialty of physicians with their opinion about importance and necessity of IPs. However, there is a statistically significant relationship between the physicians' specialty and their opinions about the following ideas: "information may create side effects" (p=0.01), "the stage of diseases that patient experiences is important and to be considered in personalization of IPs" (p=0.01). Originality/value ‐ This study is unique because there are no similar studies in the published literature. Physicians are one of the main stakeholders in IPs, therefore it is important to find out their opinions and attitudes towards prescription of information.
    Aslib Proceedings 03/2013; 65(3). DOI:10.1108/00012531311330629 · 0.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many speak of the digital divide, but variation in the opportunity of patients to use the Internet for health (patient eHealth readiness) is not a binary difference, rather a distribution influenced by personal capability, provision of services, support, and cost. Digital divisions in health have been addressed by various initiatives, but there was no comprehensive validated measure to know if they are effective that could be used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) covering both non-Internet-users and the range of Internet-users.

  • JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 09/2013; 310(12):1231-2. DOI:10.1001/jama.2013.277050 · 35.29 Impact Factor
Show more