Display options
Cite
Eggen R, Tjensvoll K, Nylenna M. Examining the use of an open digital health library for professionals. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014;3(4):e66doi: 10.2196/resprot.3820.
Eggen, R., Tjensvoll, K., & Nylenna, M. (2014). Examining the use of an open digital health library for professionals. JMIR research protocols, 3(4), e66. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.3820
Eggen, Runar, et al. "Examining the use of an open digital health library for professionals." JMIR research protocols vol. 3,4 (2014): e66. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.3820
Eggen R, Tjensvoll K, Nylenna M. Examining the use of an open digital health library for professionals. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014 Nov 18;3(4):e66. doi: 10.2196/resprot.3820. PMID: 25406825; PMCID: PMC4260083.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

JMIR Res Protoc. 2014 Nov 18;3(4):e66. doi: 10.2196/resprot.3820.

Examining the use of an open digital health library for professionals.

JMIR research protocols

Runar Eggen, Kjell Tjensvoll, Magne Nylenna

Affiliations

  1. Norwegian Electronic Health Library, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway. [email protected].

PMID: 25406825 PMCID: PMC4260083 DOI: 10.2196/resprot.3820

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Electronic Health Library (The Library) is a website for health personnel. Most of the content is also open to the public. Usage statistics have risen sharply in the years 2010-2013.

OBJECTIVE: We wanted to find out whether the rise was caused by health personnel, the general public, or other factors.

METHODS: Since we lacked direct information, we had to use proxy data to shed light on our questions. We applied mixed methods (database of registered users, user survey, usage statistics, and statistics from suppliers), and triangulated between them.

RESULTS: Health personnel were our largest user group, but The Library was also accessed by students, patients, and other groups. Content in Norwegian was preferred to English language content. Concise, practical information was preferred to more comprehensive information. Patient leaflets were the most popular information type. Mobile phone visits differed from personal computer visits both in terms of time of day and what kind of information was viewed.

CONCLUSIONS: The Library was used mostly by health personnel, as intended, but our data are inconclusive regarding a possible change in user groups. There was a large degree of consistency in results when using different investigation methods. The survey points toward health personnel being the largest user group, and the usage statistics show that patient leaflets are the most popular content, being viewed by both health personnel and patients.

Keywords: Web log analysis; access to information; information dissemination; libraries, medical; search engine /statistics

References

  1. JAMA. 2014 May 14;311(18):1857-8 - PubMed
  2. Lancet. 2010 Mar 20;375(9719):1048-51 - PubMed
  3. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1997 Apr;85(2):187-92 - PubMed
  4. JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2851-3 - PubMed
  5. BMJ. 2005 Dec 24;331(7531):1487-8 - PubMed

Publication Types