Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Bulletin of the Medical Library Association logoLink to Bulletin of the Medical Library Association
. 1999 Jan;87(1):58–66.

Factors affecting the diffusion of online end user literature searching.

J S Ash 1
PMCID: PMC226524  PMID: 9934530

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify factors that affect diffusion of usage of online end user literature searching. Fifteen factors clustered into three attribute sets (innovation attributes, organizational attributes, and marketing attributes) were measured to study their effect on the diffusion of online searching within institutions. METHODS: A random sample of sixty-seven academic health sciences centers was selected and then 1,335 library and informatics staff members at those institutions were surveyed by mail with electronic mail follow-up. Multiple regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: The survey yielded a 41% response rate with electronic mail follow-up being particularly effective. Two dependent variables, internal diffusion (spread of diffusion) and infusion (depth of diffusion), were measured. There was little correlation between them, indicating they measured different things. Fifteen independent variables clustered into three attribute sets were measured. The innovation attributes set was significant for both internal diffusion and infusion. Significant individual variables were visibility for internal diffusion and image enhancement effects (negative relation) as well as visibility for infusion (depth of diffusion). Organizational attributes were also significant predictors for both dependent variables. No individual variables were significant for internal diffusion. Communication, management support (negative relation), rewards, and existence of champions were significant for infusion. Marketing attributes were not significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Successful diffusion of online end user literature searching is dependent on the visibility of the systems, communication among, rewards to, and peers of possible users who promote use (champions). Personal image enhancement effects have a negative relation to infusion, possibly because the use of intermediaries is still seen as the more luxurious way to have searches done. Management support also has a negative relation to infusion, perhaps indicating that depth of diffusion can increase despite top-level management actions.

Full text

PDF
58

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Covell D. G., Uman G. C., Manning P. R. Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Ann Intern Med. 1985 Oct;103(4):596–599. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-103-4-596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dixon D. R., Dixon B. J. Adoption of information technology enabled innovations by primary care physicians: model and questionnaire development. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:631–635. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gorman P. N., Ash J., Wykoff L. Can primary care physicians' questions be answered using the medical journal literature? Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1994 Apr;82(2):140–146. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gorman P. N., Helfand M. Information seeking in primary care: how physicians choose which clinical questions to pursue and which to leave unanswered. Med Decis Making. 1995 Apr-Jun;15(2):113–119. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gravois S. L., Fisher W., Bowen D. M. Information-seeking practices of dental hygienists. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1995 Oct;83(4):446–452. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Greer A. L. Advances in the study of diffusion of innovation in health care organizations. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1977 Fall;55(4):505–532. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall E. F. Physical therapists in private practice: information sources and information needs. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1995 Apr;83(2):196–201. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kimberly J. R., Evanisko M. J. Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Acad Manage J. 1981 Dec;24(4):689–713. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lindberg D. A., Siegel E. R., Rapp B. A., Wallingford K. T., Wilson S. R. Use of MEDLINE by physicians for clinical problem solving. JAMA. 1993 Jun 23;269(24):3124–3129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Shelstad K. R., Clevenger F. W. Information retrieval patterns and needs among practicing general surgeons: a statewide experience. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1996 Oct;84(4):490–497. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Verhoeven A. A., Boerma E. J., Meyboom-de Jong B. Management of bibliographic information by Dutch researchers in general practice. Fam Pract. 1997 Feb;14(1):69–72. doi: 10.1093/fampra/14.1.69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Bulletin of the Medical Library Association are provided here courtesy of Medical Library Association

RESOURCES