Background: Prior educational interventions to increase seeking evidence by medical students have been unsuccessful.
Methods: We report two quasirandomized controlled trials to increase seeking of medical evidence by third-year medical students. In the first trial (1997-1998), we placed computers in clinical locations and taught their use in a 6-hour course. Based on negative results, we created SUMSearch, an Internet site that automates searching for medical evidence by simultaneous meta-searching of MEDLINE and other sites. In the second trial (1999-2000), we taught SUMSearch's use in a 5(1/2)-hour course. Both courses were taught during the medicine clerkship. For each trial, we surveyed the entire third-year class at 6 months, after half of the students had taken the course (intervention group). The students who had not received the intervention were the control group. We measured self-report of search frequency and satisfaction with search quality and speed.
Results: The proportion of all students who reported searching at least weekly for medical evidence significantly increased from 19% (1997-1998) to 42% (1999-2000). The proportion of all students who were satisfied with their search results increased significantly between study years. However, in neither study year did the interventions increase searching or satisfaction with results. Satisfaction with the speed of searching was 27% in 1999-2000. This did not increase between studies years and was not changed by the interventions.
Conclusion: None of our interventions affected searching habits. Even with automated searching, students report low satisfaction with search speed. We are concerned that students using current strategies for seeking medical evidence will be less likely to seek and appraise original studies when they enter medical practice and have less time.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC48153 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-1-3 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Risk-stratified Care Improves Pain-related Knowledge and Reduces Psychological Distress for Low Back Pain: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.
Clin Orthop Relat Res
January 2025
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX, USA.
Background: A number of efforts have been made to tailor behavioral healthcare treatments to the variable needs of patients with low back pain (LBP). The most common approach involves the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) to triage the need for psychologically informed care, which explores concerns about pain and addresses unhelpful beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Such beliefs that pain always signifies injury or tissue damage and that exercise should be avoided have been implied as psychosocial mediators of chronic pain and can impede recovery.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFKinematic Alignment Does Not Result in Clinically Important Improvements After TKA Compared With Mechanical Alignment: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.
Clin Orthop Relat Res
January 2025
Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Background: There is debate as to whether kinematic TKA or mechanical alignment TKA is superior. Recent systematic reviews have suggested that kinematically aligned TKAs may be the preferred option. However, the observed differences in alignment favoring kinematic alignment may not improve outcomes (performance or durability) in ways that patients can perceive, and likewise, statistical differences in outcome scores sometimes observed in clinical trials may be too small for patients to notice.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPerioperative Chemotherapy or Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Cancer.
N Engl J Med
January 2025
From Bielefeld University, Medical School and University Medical Center Ostwestfalen-Lippe, Campus Hospital Lippe, Detmold, Germany (J.H.); the Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria (T.B.); the Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany (C.S.); the Institute of Surgical Pathology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany (P.B.); the Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein-Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany (B.K., T.K.); Comprehensive Cancer Center Augsburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany (R.C.); the Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany (S.U.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany (J.R.I.); the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute and San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan (I.G.); the Department of General, Visceral, Thoracic, and Endocrine Surgery, Johannes Wesling University Hospital Minden, Ruhr University Bochum, Minden, Germany (B.G.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Pediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany (M.G.); the Department of General, Visceral, Thoracic, Transplantation, and Pediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein-Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany (B.R.); the Department of General, Visceral, Transplantation, Vascular, and Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (J.F.L.); the Department of General, Visceral, Cancer, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (C.B.); the Department of Hematology and Oncology, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Offenbach am Main, Germany (E.R.); the Department of Surgery, Klinikum Dortmund, Klinikum der Universität Witten-Herdecke, Dortmund, Germany (M.S.); the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany (F.B.); the Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (G.F.); the Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Cancer Immunology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin (P.T.-P.); the Department of General, Visceral, Cancer, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany (U.P.N.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany (A.P.); the Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany (D.I.); the Division of Gastroenterology, Rheumatology, and Infectology, Department of Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin (S.D.); the Department of Surgery, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany (T.S.); the Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany (C.K.); the Department of Medicine II, Saarland University Medical Center, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany (S.Z.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, Munich, Germany (J.W.); the Department of Internal Medicine I, Klinikum Mutterhaus der Borromaerinnen, Trier, Germany (R.M.); the Departments of Hematology, Oncology, and Palliative Care, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany (G.I.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany (P.G.); and the Department of Medicine II, University Cancer Center Leipzig, Cancer Center Central Germany, University Medical Center Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany (F.L.).
Background: The best multimodal approach for resectable locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is unclear. An important question is whether perioperative chemotherapy is preferable to preoperative chemoradiotherapy.
Methods: In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma to receive perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) plus surgery or preoperative chemoradiotherapy (radiotherapy at a dose of 41.
Does Resilience Change in Patients Undergoing Shoulder Surgery? A Retrospective Comparative Study Utilizing the Brief Resilience Scale.
Clin Orthop Relat Res
January 2025
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Background: Resilience refers to the ability to adapt or recover from stress. There is increasing appreciation that it plays an important role in wholistic patient-centered care and may affect patient outcomes, including those of orthopaedic surgery. Despite being a focus of the current orthopaedic evidence, there is no strong understanding yet of whether resilience is a stable patient quality or a dynamic one that may be modified perioperatively to improve patient-reported outcome scores.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAdherence to Oral Anticancer Agents Among Adults With Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer: A Scoping Review.
Cancer Nurs
January 2025
Author Affiliations: The Nethersole School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong (Ms Chen and Drs Ng, Zhang, and Chan); and Nursing Department, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Nanning, China (Ms Chen).
Background: Patients with gastrointestinal tract cancer reported suboptimal adherence to oral anticancer agents (OAAs), reducing their therapeutic benefit and increasing mortality risk. A scoping review can comprehensively map available evidence on adherence to OAAs and inform appropriate support to improve treatment outcomes.
Objective: The aim of this study was to comprehensively map studies on adherence to OAAs among adults with gastrointestinal tract cancer, including the adherence rate, nonadherence reasons, influential factors, management strategies, and theories that guide these studies.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!