Disseminating evidence-based health information - bytes, paper or both?

Kristian Lampe
Finnish Office for Health Care Technology Assessment (FinOHTA), National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES)

Objectives The provision of evidence-based and cost-effective health care requires the utilisation of the latest and most reliable scientific evidence. The Internet can be used to deliver information both to health care workers and decision makers. Not everyone, however, uses the Internet for a variety of reasons. The aim was to study the feasibility of using the World Wide Web and e-mail as dissemination channels, as compared to traditional (paper-based) means. Study design Survey of the information needs and preferred communication methods of five target groups: physicians, other health care professionals (e.g. nurses), decision makers, patient organisations and medical journalists. Methods A postal questionnaire was sent to 1775 persons in Feb 2003, with one reminder. Response rate was 35% (629 respondents). The data were analysed using SPSS for Windows (v 11.5.1). This analysis focuses on the use of electronic media in information dissemination. It is part of a larger study that includes other research questions. Results Many respondents have a weekly need for more information on the effects and costs of health interventions. Need for this type of information is clear, also when compared to other information needs (e.g. need for guidelines or epidemiological data). The majority of respondents had an easy access to World Wide Web at the workplace (80%). Most had also easy access to email at work (87%). Easy availability of the Web or e-mail correlated strongly to the use of these media. Approximately half of the respondents perceived the Web or email as clearly useful sources of information on the effects and costs of health interventions. However, discussions, meetings, journals and books were perceived more useful in this respect. Finding information right when it was needed was perceived more often difficult than keeping up-to-date on the effects and costs of health interventions. Common problems in finding information on these topics were lack of time; poor availability of information; and difficulty in getting an overview of any given topic. Short abstracts in the local language, as well as notifications of the availability of new technology assessment reports were among the most preferred methods of receiving new information. Only a minority wanted to receive the original reports in paper form. The paper version of a national technology assessment agency (FinOHTA) newsletter has still more readers (30%) among the respondents than its online version (8%). One out of five respondents had visited the web site of FinOHTA. Most of the visitors use the site less frequently than once per month. Conclusions The majority of health care workers, decision makers, patient representatives and medical journalists have access to online information sources and email. There is a clear and frequent need for evidence-based information on intervention effects and costs. The Internet can be used as a means of disseminating information, but many still prefer paper-based media or personal communication. Special emphasis should be placed on improving the performance of information services. Rapid services that provide compact information in the local (native) language would probably best meet user preferences. Information published on static web sites is not the best method of reaching important audiences.