Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) >
Special Research Institutes >
Health Economics Research Group (HERG) >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||The information sources and journals consulted or read by UK paediatricians to inform their clinical practice and those which they consider important: a questionnaire survey|
|Authors: ||Jones, TH|
|Publication Date: ||2007|
|Publisher: ||BioMed Central|
|Citation: ||BMC Pediatrics. 7 (1) 1-8|
|Abstract: ||Background: Implementation of health research findings is important for medicine to be
evidence-based. Previous studies have found variation in the information sources thought to be of greatest importance to clinicians but publication in peer-reviewed journals is the traditional route for dissemination of research findings. There is debate about whether the impact made on clinicians should be considered as part of the evaluation of research outputs. We aimed to determine first which information sources are generally most consulted by paediatricians to inform their clinical practice, and which sources they considered most important, and second, how many and which peer-reviewed journals they read.
Methods: We enquired, by questionnaire survey, about the information sources and academic
journals that UK medical paediatric specialists generally consulted, attended or read and
considered important to their clinical practice.
Results: The same three information sources – professional meetings & conferences, peerreviewed
journals and medical colleagues – were, overall, the most consulted or attended and ranked the most important. No one information source was found to be of greatest importance to all groups of paediatricians. Journals were widely read by all groups, but the proportion ranking them first in importance as an information source ranged from 10% to 46%. The number of journals read varied between the groups, but Archives of Disease in Childhood and BMJ were the most read
journals in all groups. Six out of the seven journals previously identified as containing best paediatric evidence are the most widely read overall by UK paediatricians, however, only the two most prominent are widely read by those based in the community.
Conclusion: No one information source is dominant, therefore a variety of approaches to
Continuing Professional Development and the dissemination of research findings to paediatricians should be used. Journals are an important information source. A small number of key ones can be identified and such analysis could provide valuable additional input into the evaluation of clinical research outputs.|
|Appears in Collections:||Health|
Health Economics Research Group (HERG)
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.