摘要：Purpose: The research sought to ascertain the types and quantity of research evidence accessed by health personnel through PubMed and UpToDate in a university medical center over the course of a year in order to better estimate the impact that increasing levels of open access to biomedical research can be expected to have on clinical practice in the years ahead. Methods: Web log data were gathered from the 5,042 health personnel working in the Stanford University Hospitals (SUH) during 2011. Data were analyzed for access to the primary literature (abstracts and full-text) through PubMed and UpToDate and to the secondary literature, represented by UpToDate (research summaries), to establish the frequency and nature of literature consulted. Results: In 2011, SUH health personnel accessed 81,851 primary literature articles and visited UpToDate 110,336 times. Almost a third of the articles (24,529) accessed were reviews. Twenty percent (16,187) of the articles viewed were published in 2011. Conclusion: When it is available, health personnel in a clinical care setting frequently access the primary literature. While further studies are needed, this preliminary finding speaks to the value of the National Institutes of Health public access policy and the need for medical librarians and educators to prepare health personnel for increasing public access to medical research. Highlights Basic information- and evidence-seeking behaviors among health personnel working with relatively complete access to biomedical research are examined. Evidence of potential use of research resulting from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy and other biomedical funding agencies that require open access is provided. Information access at the article level provides descriptive statistics of information currency, source, and publication type. Relative use rates between PubMed and UpToDate among health personnel are provided. Implications Policy revision is necessitated, as the NIH public access policy's current one-year embargo is incongruent with health professionals' access of information. Increasing public access to biomedical research will lead to more frequent consultation of evidence among health personnel. Medical librarians and educators need to prepare health personnel to work in clinical environments with increased access to research.
Loading...
