Information needs and information seeking in a biomedical research setting: a study of scientists and science administrators

Grefsheim, Suzanne F.; Rankin, Jocelyn A.

doi:10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.426

Cited by 36 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, respondents were as likely in 2006 to seek information themselves, rather than have someone else do it for them, as they were in 2004: 85% of the time in 2004 and 81% of the time in 2006. This is a somewhat lower percentage than the general population of NIH researchers, perhaps explained by the larger number of clinicians in the survey population than in the general NIH research population surveyed in 2005 [22]. Respondents were more The informationist likely to use ''electronic journals and databases'' to find information in 2006 (80%) than in 2004 (69%) (question 2.3, Table 2).…”

Section: Information Behaviormentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Most NIH clinical trials take place at the Bethesda, Maryland, NIH Clinical Research Center, a 242-bed, in-patient hospital with 90 day-stations for out-patient visits. Ninety-five percent of the researchers working in these laboratories and clinics reported seeking information themselves, and 91% reported they preferred doing so according to a 2005 information needs assessment [22]. Institutional review board approval was not required for this study, because NIH does not require it for program evaluations conducted among its staff by central service organizations such as the NIH Library.…”

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The informationist: building evidence for an emerging health profession

Grefsheim¹,

Whitmore

Rapp

et al. 2010

J Med Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Information Behaviormentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 96%

The informationist: building evidence for an emerging health profession

Grefsheim¹,

Whitmore

Rapp

et al. 2010

J Med Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Journals and online databases are currently the most frequently accessed resources among biomedical information seekers, followed by books, proceedings, newsletters, technical reports, author web pages, etc. [12,13]. Given the rising quality, volume, and diversity of biomedical literature [14], the information seeking trend has advanced to multiple layers of information access.…”

Section: Current Access To Biomedical Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Accessing Biomedical Literature in the Current Information Landscape

Khare

Leaman

2014

Methods in Molecular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

i. Summary Biomedical and life sciences literature is unique because of its exponentially increasing volume and interdisciplinary nature. Biomedical literature access is essential for several types of users including biomedical researchers, clinicians, database curators, and bibliometricians. In the past few decades, several online search tools and literature archives, generic as well as biomedicine-specific, have been developed. We present this chapter in the light of three consecutive steps of literature access: searching for citations, retrieving full-text, and viewing the article. The first section presents the current state of practice of biomedical literature access, including an analysis of the search tools most frequently used by the users, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase, and a study on biomedical literature archives such as PubMed Central. The next section describes current research and the state-of-the-art systems motivated by the challenges a user faces during query formulation and interpretation of search results. The research solutions are classified into five key areas related to text and data mining, text similarity search, semantic search, query support, relevance ranking, and clustering results. Finally, the last section describes some predicted future trends for improving biomedical literature access, such as searching and reading articles on portable devices, and adoption of the open access policy.

show abstract

“…For example, clinical settings are more concerned with patient care, and so tend to generate questions that are more specific and urgent (Forsythe et al 193; McKnight 148–50; Bennett et al 3). Therefore, it was decided to perform a qualitative research study, rather than another broad survey of NIH staff (see Grefsheim and Rankin). The NIH Library already collects quantitative data on the utilization of resources and users’ assessments of services, but this data does not provide the complete picture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inquiring Informationists: A Qualitative Exploration of Our Role

Robison

Ryan

Cooper

2009

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-The goal of this study is to explore the impact of an informationist program at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Library and to provide a basis for further program assessment. In 2001 the NIH Library began its informationist program, where librarians with training in both biomedicine and information science work alongside researchers. The goal of the program is to facilitate researchers' access to and usage of information resources.Methods-The researchers used qualitative interviews with key informants to characterize the current informationist services of user groups. Subjects were selected to capture a variety of activities that would show patterns of how the program assists the researchers of various NIH groups. Following the interviews, the authors extracted recurring and significant themes from the subjects' comments.Results-Interview subjects provided their views on the informationists' skills, impact, and team participation. Research results documented that informationists helped find resources, provided instruction, and worked as part of the research team. The NIH groups currently using this service value their informationists' knowledge of library resources and their ability to access information needs quickly. The informationists' skills in finding information save the researchers time, increase the efficiency of the research team, and complement the contributions of other team members. Training by informationists was found useful. Informationist services led to increased self-reported library use, albeit in some cases this use was entirely via the informationist.Conclusions-Informationists saved researchers time by obtaining requested information, finding esoteric or unfamiliar resources, and providing related training. These activities appeared to be facilitated by the acceptance of the informationist as part of the research team. This exploratory study provides background that should be useful in future, more extensive evaluations.

show abstract

Information needs and information seeking in a biomedical research setting: a study of scientists and science administrators

Cited by 36 publications

References 11 publications

The informationist: building evidence for an emerging health profession

The informationist: building evidence for an emerging health profession

Accessing Biomedical Literature in the Current Information Landscape

Inquiring Informationists: A Qualitative Exploration of Our Role

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About