The Online Health Information Needs of Family Physicians: Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies

Abstract

Background Digitalization and the increasing availability of online information have changed the way in which information is searched for and retrieved by the public and by health professionals. The technical developments in the last two decades have transformed the methods of information retrieval. Although systematic evidence exists on the general information needs of specialists, and in particular, family physicians (FPs), there have been no recent systematic reviews to specifically address the needs of FPs and any barriers that may exist to accessing online health information. Objective This review aims to provide an up-to-date perspective on the needs of FPs in searching, retrieving, and using online information. Methods This systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies searched a multitude of databases spanning the years 2000 to 2020 (search date January 2020). Studies that analyzed the online information needs of FPs, any barriers to the accessibility of information, and their information-seeking behaviors were included. Two researchers independently scrutinized titles and abstracts, analyzing full-text papers for their eligibility, the studies therein, and the data obtained from them. Results The initial search yielded 4541 studies for initial title and abstract screening. Of the 144 studies that were found to be eligible for full-text screening, 41 were finally included. A total of 20 themes were developed and summarized into 5 main categories: individual needs of FPs before the search; access needs, including factors that would facilitate or hinder information retrieval; quality needs of the information to hand; utilization needs of the information available; and implication needs for everyday practice. Conclusions This review suggests that searching, accessing, and using online information, as well as any pre-existing needs, barriers, or demands, should not be perceived as separate entities but rather be regarded as a sequential process. Apart from accessing information and evaluating its quality, FPs expressed concerns regarding the applicability of this information to their everyday practice and its subsequent relevance to patient care. Future online information resources should cater to the needs of the primary care setting and seek to address the way in which such resources may be adapted to these specific requirements.

Prioritization of Quality Principles for Health Apps Using the Kano Model: Survey Study

“…To identify items of relevance, such as for inclusion in various tools [ 4 - 8 ] meant to aid in assessing such technologies that are to be provided to the respective target groups (eg, physicians or other health care personnel), it is important to identify certain key aspects in the hope that these fulfill the information needs and information-seeking behaviors of users [ 55 ]. Many authors use rather detailed approaches and criteria to enable this information-seeking and more easily assess the quality of health-related apps, and they often target specific (professional) user groups [ 54 ].…”

“…For both previous studies [ 18 , 19 ], there was no clear pathway for prioritization of the principles should the need arise, apart from resource efficiency consistently being the least popular quality principle, with ensuing lesser relevance. However, in today’s medical world, time is a valuable commodity, and in fact, a lack of time or too much effort being required to adequately assess all relevant aspects is often mentioned as a barrier both to accessing information [ 55 ] as well as to employing apps in specific situations (eg, for consultations [ 57 ]). Although health apps may initially give the impression of being able to save time and reduce effort, professional ethics (eg, [ 58 , 59 ]) demand that those working in medical professions must ensure that any (digital) tools they use are up to the expected professional standards.…”

Treatment thresholds and minimal clinically important effect sizes of antiosteoporotic medication–Survey among physicians and lay persons in Germany

“…On the one hand, guidelines often insufficiently communicate ES or MCID to the very same physicians who should apply them or deviate from them in an evidence-based way [ 9 ]. Even if ES or MCID would be presented in guidelines, German physicians themselves identify a “lack of EBM skills” as barrier to seek for and evaluate information in the first place [ 45 ]. If an ES or MCID is neither sufficiently reported, nor comprehensibly presented to the physician, nor appropriately understood by physicians, it remains doubtful if it can be explained to the patient in the shared-decision making process.…”

“…guidelines, German physicians themselves identify a "lack of EBM skills" as barrier to seek for and evaluate information in the first place [45]. If an ES or MCID is neither sufficiently reported, nor comprehensibly presented to the physician, nor appropriately understood by physicians, it remains doubtful if it can be explained to the patient in the shared-decision making process.…”

Self-perceived competencies on evidence-based medicine in medical students and physicians registered in a virtual course: a cross-sectional study

“…The use of EBM has barriers such as lack of digital skills, low access to online information, lack of time, the science-practice gap [ 6 ], and lack of competencies among health personnel [ 7 , 8 ]. Accordingly, previous studies in Peru [ 9–11 ] and other countries [ 12–15 ] have found that physicians and medical students often have conceptual and procedural shortcomings regarding EBM competencies.…”