Recoding hyperresearch registration#
Recoding hyperresearch professional#

Although the majority of health professionals use technology to access information, the challenges of keeping up to date with the overwhelming dispersion of information and the barriers to information seeking, such as time constraints and inadequate information and communication technology infrastructure, have been well described ( 4, 8, 17– 21).

Some trials have shown that articles randomly selected to be shared on social medial did not show a change in 30-day page views ( 15, 16). Recent studies indicate that articles on Twitter are three times more likely to be downloaded compared with those that were not featured, although these articles were selected for dissemination and may be biased to the interest of the readership ( 14).

Many biomedical journals have broadened their dissemination strategies to include email alerts, online e-prints, visual abstracts, mobile applications, podcasts, and YouTube as well as the use of social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, to amplify communication of scientific work ( 4, 5, 9– 13).

Recoding hyperresearch professional#

This could limit the effectiveness of scientific information for supporting professional development, clinical decision making, patient care, and research ( 8). However, the publication of scientific information from clinical or academic settings remains predominantly through “traditional” biomedical journals ( 4– 7), which may not be optimally tailored to how clinicians and researchers access, consume, and use evidence in the modern age.

In the past two decades, the internet and other advances in technology have rapidly changed the way that information is communicated and consumed ( 1– 3). Mechanisms that enable them to distil relevant and new evidence, appraise and apply information to clinical practice and research, disseminate studies to colleagues, and engage in discussion and debate may enhance their comprehension, confidence, interpretation, and use of scientific literature. Immediate and digitally optimized access motivated young kidney professionals to consume scientific information. Five themes were identified: capturing and retaining attention (with subthemes of triggering interest, optimizing readability, and navigation to sustain motivation) having discernible relevance (resonating with clinical and research interests, supporting professional development, action-oriented and readily applicable, able to disseminate, contextualizing the study, and filtering out informational noise) immediacy and efficiency in processing information (requiring instantaneous and easy access, enabling rapid understanding, and facilitating comprehension of complex concepts) trusting legitimate and credible sources (authoritative indicator of importance and quality, reputable experts broadening perspective, certainty and confidence with collegial input, accurate framing and translation of the message, ascertaining methodologic detail and nuances, and integrating the patient perspective) and social dialoguing and debate. Of the 72 participants invited, 29 participated from 28 centers across 13 countries.

Recoding hyperresearch registration#

Three focus groups were conducted during the 2017 American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week with a total of 29 nephrologists and researchers (ages 40 years old and younger) purposively sampled through our networks and the American Society of Nephrology registration database.

We aimed to describe the perspectives of young clinicians and researchers in kidney disease on consuming scientific information. Traditional dissemination of scholarly work through biomedical journals may not be optimally tailored to the preferences of younger clinicians and researchers. The digital era has seen rapid changes in how information is consumed.