PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9067879

Evaluating IAIMS at Yale: information access.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate use of information resources during the first year of IAIMS implementation at the Yale-New Haven Medical Center. The evaluation asked: (1) Which information resources are being used? (2) Who uses information resources? (3) Where are information resources used? (4) Are multiple sources of information being integrated? DESIGN: Measures included monthly usage data for resources delivered network-wide, in the Medical Library, and in the Hospital; online surveys of library workstation users; an annual survey of a random, stratified sample of Medical Center faculty, postdoctoral trainees, students, nurses, residents, and managerial and professional staff; and user comments. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of the Medical Center community use networked information resources, and use of resources is increasing. Both status (faculty, student, nurse, etc.) and mission (teaching, research, patient care) affect use of individual resources. Eighty-eight percent of people use computers in more than one location, and increases in usage of traditional library resources such as MEDLINE are due to increased access from outside the Library. Both survey and usage data suggest that people are using multiple resources during the same information seeking session. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all of the Medical Center community is using networked information resources in more settings. It is necessary to support increased demand for information access from remote locations and to specific populations, such as nurses. People are integrating information from multiple sources, but true integration within information systems is just beginning. Other institutions are advised to incorporate pragmatic evaluation into their IAIMS activities and to share evaluation results with decision-makers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S E Grajek, P Calarco, S J Frawley, J McKay, P L Miller, J A Paton, N K Roderer, J E Sullivan. Evaluating IAIMS at Yale: information access.. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.1997.0040138

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Challenges in drug development for muscle disease: a stakeholders' meeting.

Current treatment benefits for patients with muscle disease are limited, but progress in legislative and scientific initiatives have set the stage for the development of new therapies. The MD-CARE Act (Public Law 107-84), which allocates federal resources to muscular dystrophy, was approved by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States in 2001. This has shifted the emphasis toward translational research. To facilitate a push toward therapy for muscle disorders, the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) sponsored a meeting with representatives from industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other government agencies and academia. Each contributed in different ways. The FDA helped define the necessary data to support investigational new drug (IND) applications including the design of proof-of-principle studies, outcome measures for clinical trials, and the pathway for developing surrogate measures for fast-tracking promising new drugs. The NIH, other government agencies, and the MDA described potential funding sources for translational research. Industry delineated a complementary role with academia, and academic investigators elucidated the current strengths and weaknesses of available clinical endpoints. The meeting provided a format for communication for diverse disciplines that usually have no common meeting ground, helping to lay the foundation for bringing products to market in a timely fashion.

Academic Medical Centers↗

Reporting of adverse drug reactions: predictors of under-reporting in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: Malaysia like many other countries worldwide uses spontaneous reporting systems as a mean of collecting data on suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR). However, compared to other countries, which use the system, the reporting rate in Malaysia is very low. Why some physicians do not report ADRs is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors, which would predict physicians' failure to send ADR reports. DESIGN AND SETTING: Face-to-face interview using a structured questionnaire involving physicians working at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. RESULTS: About a third of the physicians in the Centre participated. Sixty-five of the 415 approached refused to participate. A high proportion of the respondents (81.4%) indicated that they had suspected an ADR but did not report it, while about 40% of the respondents were not aware of the existence of the national reporting system in Malaysia. Logistic regression modelling identified the variable 'ADR considered to be too trivial or too well known to report' as the strongest predictor of not reporting, followed by physicians' category and uncertainty that the reaction had been definitely caused by a drug. CONCLUSION: Important predictor variables, which limit physicians from reporting ADR in Malaysia, were related to uncertainty of types of reaction to report, lack of awareness about the existence, function and purpose of national ADR reporting. The findings could be useful for planning strategies to improve the reporting rate.

Academic Medical Centers↗