Cited by 356Health Sciences Research and EducationLibrary Science and Information LiteracyHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

The information‐seeking behaviour of doctors: a review of the evidence

Davies, Karen·2007·Health Information & Libraries Journal

Abstract

This paper provides a narrative review of the available literature from the past 10 years (1996–2006) that focus on the information seeking behaviour of doctors. The review considers the literature in three sub‐themes: Theme 1, the Information Needs of Doctors includes information need, frequency of doctors’ questions and types of information needs; Theme 2, Information Seeking by Doctors embraces pattern of information resource use, time spent searching, barriers to information searching and information searching skills; Theme 3, Information Sources Utilized by Doctors comprises the number of sources utilized, comparison of information sources consulted, computer usage, ranking of information resources, printed resource use, personal digital assistant (PDA) use, electronic database use and the Internet. The review is wide ranging. It would seem that the traditional methods of face‐to‐face communication and use of hard‐copy evidence still prevail amongst qualified medical staff in the clinical setting. The use of new technologies embracing the new digital age in information provision may influence this in the future. However, for now, it would seem that there is still research to be undertaken to uncover the most effective methods of encouraging clinicians to use the best evidence in everyday practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00713.x

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davies, K.
Affiliations
Loughborough University (GB)
Corresponding author
Davies, Karen
Venue
Health Information & Libraries Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
78-94
ISSN
  • 1471-1834 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-1842
OpenAlex
W1963911880
Cited by
356
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 33
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2010-11-03)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Information & Libraries Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
information seeking, physicians, physician information needs, information sources, information search skills, online databases, internet use, personal digital assistants, computer use, clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Clinical Competence, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Inservice Training, Interprofessional Relations, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Care Planning, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Information Storage and Retrieval, Evidence-Based Medicine, Internet, Professional Role, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review