Case Report: Impact of Research-based Synopses Delivered as Daily E-mail: A Prospective Observational Study

We conducted a prospective observational study to (1) determine usage and construct validity of a method to gauge the cognitive impact of information derived from daily e-mail, and (2) describe self-reported impacts of research-based synopses (InfoPOEMs) delivered as e-mail. Ratings of InfoPOEMs using an Impact assessment scale provided (a) data on usage of the impact assessment method, (b) reports of impact by InfoPOEM and by doctor and (c) data for analysis of construct validity of the scale. PARTICIPANTS were family physicians or general practitioners who rated at least five InfoPOEMs delivered on e-mail. For each InfoPOEM rated, 0.1 continuing education credit was awarded by the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Use of the impact assessment scale linked to a daily InfoPOEM was sustained during the 150-day study period. 1,007 participants submitted 61,493 reports of 'cognitive impact' by rating on average 61 InfoPOEMs (range 5-111). 'I learned something new' was most frequently reported. 'I was frustrated as there was not enough information or nothing useful' was the most frequently reported negative type of impact. The proportion of reports of 'No Impact' varied substantially across individual InfoPOEMs. Impact patterns suggested an 8 or 9-factor solution. Our Impact assessment method facilitates knowledge transfer by promoting two-way exchange between providers of health information and family doctors. Providers of health information can use this method to better understand the impact of research-based synopses. Sustaining current practice and increasing knowledge about new developments in medicine are important outcomes arising from research-based synopses delivered as e-mail, in addition to practice change.

[1]  Amit X. Garg,et al.  Application of Information Technology: McMaster PLUS: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial of an Intervention to Accelerate Clinical Use of Evidence-based Information from Digital Libraries , 2006, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[2]  Keith H. Nuechterlein,et al.  An Illustration of Multilevel Factor Analysis , 2005, Journal of personality assessment.

[3]  M. Giacomini,et al.  The rocky road: qualitative research as evidence , 2001, ACP journal club.

[4]  C. Weiss.  Using social research in public policy making , 1979 .

[5]  Pierre Pluye,et al.  Research Paper: Systematically Assessing the Situational Relevance of Electronic Knowledge Resources: A Mixed Methods Study , 2007, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[6]  Roland M. Grad,et al.  A New Impact Assessment Method to Evaluate Knowledge Resources , 2005, AMIA.

[7]  A F Shaughnessy,et al.  Are we providing doctors with the training and tools for lifelong learning? , 1999, The Western journal of medicine.

[8]  M. Schwartz,et al.  Electronic delivery of research summaries for academic generalist doctors: a randomised trial of an educational intervention , 2005, Medical education.

[9]  Karin D. Knorr-Cetina,et al.  Policymakers' Use of Social Science Knowledge : symbolic or Instrumental? , 1977 .

[10]  D. Slawson,et al.  Teaching Evidence-Based Medicine: Should We Be Teaching Information Management Instead? , 2005, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[11]  Roland M. Grad,et al.  Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: A literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies , 2005, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[12]  R B Haynes,et al.  Of studies, summaries, synopses, and systems: the “4S” evolution of services for finding current best evidence , 2005, ACP journal club.

[13]  J. Denis,et al.  Use of health technology assessment in decision making: Coresponsibility of users and producers? , 2005, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[14]  Sally Green,et al.  Measures for assessing practice change in medical practitioners , 2006, Implementation science : IS.

[15]  Michael Fordis,et al.  Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. , 2006, JAMA.

[16]  Robyn Tamblyn,et al.  Assessing the impact of clinical information-retrieval technology in a family practice residency. , 2005, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[17]  Richard Smith,et al.  A POEM a week for the BMJ , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  Henry A. Landsberger,et al.  Major Social Issues: A Multidisciplinary View , 1978 .

[19]  Paul B. Kantor,et al.  Studying the Value of Library and Information Services. Part I. Establishing a Theoretical Framework , 1997, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[20]  C. Estabrooks.  The conceptual structure of research utilization. , 1999, Research in nursing & health.

[21]  M. Kreuter,et al.  How Do People Process Health Information? Applications in an Age of Individualized Communication , 2001 .

[22]  Karin D. Knorr.  policy-makers use of social science knowledge: symbolic or instrumental? , 1976 .

[23]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Computer-mediated communication on the internet , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Nabil Amara,et al.  The knowledge-value chain: A conceptual framework for knowledge translation in health. , 2006, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[25]  Paul B. Kantor,et al.  Studying the Value of Library and Information Services. Part I: Establishing a Theoretical Framework. , 1997 .

[26]  J. Cosby,et al.  Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts , 2006, Quality and Safety in Health Care.