You used an electronic index, a guideline index, and a web search engine to retrieve information relevant to your clinical problem. Compare and contrast your results. Which resources were useful/ not useful for your information retrieval task, and why? Identify some alternative strategies for retrieving relevant information - would context relevant information retrieval be useful? (You must be detailed enough here, so that your blog entry evidences your use of both NGC and Google).
The problem that I chose to investigate was the effect that nurse-patient ratios have on patient outcomes. I did my research in PubMed, the Guideline Index, and in Google, each with varying and strikingly different results. After getting the hang of the PubMed database enough to do a search, I was able to locate over 120 credible scientific, peer-reviewed, and published journals on the problem I was investigating. The great thing was that the type of information that I was able to retrieve; the not so great thing, how long it took me to get it. It would be a real struggle to find the time necessary to complete such an activity in a busy clinic or hospital setting. Since I went into detail on this subject in my discussion, I have kept my comments limited here, choosing to focus my post on the other 2 methods used; but for additional information on this database, I invite you to read my discussion for this module.
As far as the Guidelines Index, I got absolutely no help from it; I tried to be very broad in my search and still got no results on my subject. I have heard how awesome this database is, so I research the site itself to see what exactly this database has to offer me. I did this so that I would be better equipped to use it in the future for other topics that I might investigate. Based on what I learned, it seems that this could potentially provide very quick access to information on a particular subject; the problem: hoping your subject is included and having to learn how to operate another database. It seems that you have to use just the right words in order to get what you are looking for and your subject might not even be included. It also seemed to retrieve a bunch of unrelated information as well, taking just as much time to weed through this information as it does to weed through the information in PubMed or CINAHL; because of this, I would be more apt to choose the PubMed or CINAHL databases first.
Google was probably the easiest and quickest access to information of them all, including Google Scholar; however, that ease of access comes at a price. Google provided 234,000 results in 0.41 seconds, but many of these sources were questionable according to the guide provided in this week’s readings. So even this search engine required critical analysis to weed through unreliable sources of information, propaganda, and other websites being influenced by outside sources and hidden agendas. Google scholar provided a more reliable search approach, but you have no control of the information presented to you because you lack the ability to place limitations on your search; also, many of the articles cannot be accessed unless you pay for them or have memberships to the companies publishing them. I like Google because of it is a very quick way to gain access to a ton of information, but you must take that extra step to ensure the information you are accessing is reliable, based in science, and from reliable sources. This is even more critical because people are getting pretty sly these days and can produce counterfeit websites that look official in order to influence you to meet their agendas; something you can avoid by using databases such as PubMed and CINAHL. You also cannot export your citations to a resource management program for effective storage, retrieval, and organization of the information you collect when you search in Google; the ability to do this has proven valuable to me time and time again throughout my educational experience and my professional life, and you lose this ability when you use Google to access information.
No comments:
Post a Comment