Recuperação da informação em saúde
construção, modelos e estratégias
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33467/conci.v3i2.13447Keywords:
Informação na Saúde, Recuperação da InformaçãoAbstract
Recuperar informações em saúde para a tomada de decisões baseada em evidências é um desafio. No entanto, é importante que, mesmo ciente das dificuldades existentes, os profissionais da informação e pesquisadores da área da saúde estejam capacitados para tal tarefa. A recuperação da informação em saúde dispõe de métodos consolidados e amplamente utilizados para este fim, mas ainda há um certo nível de dificuldade por parte dos pesquisadores para a elaboração de estratégias de buscas eficazes. O presente trabalho busca simplificar este processo a partir de um esquema lógico convertido em um modelo prático baseado em 5 etapas: extração, conversão, combinação, construção e uso. Este esquema tem por finalidade sistematizar de forma padronizada a elaboração de estratégias de busca. Para tal, apresenta-se o uso prático dos modelos de estratégia de busca PICO, PICo, PICOT, PICOD, SPICE, SPIDER, PCC, ECLIPSE e sugere o TQO como um novo modelo.
Downloads
References
BELL, Robert A. et al. Lingering questions and doubts: Online information-seeking of support forum members following their medical visits. Patient Education and Counseling, v. 85, n. 3, p.525-528, Dec. 2011.
BOOTH, Andrew. Formulating answerable questions. In: BOOTH, Andew; BRICE, Anne (ed) Evidence Based Practice for Information Professionals: A handbook. London: Facet Publishing, 2004. p. 61-70.
BOOTH, Andrew. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review: a structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews, v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-23, May 2016.
CENTRE FOR REVIEWS AND DISSEMINATION. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, England: University of York, 2009.
COOKE, Alison; SMITH, Debbie; BOOTH, Andrew. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, v. 22, n. 10, p.1435-1443, July 2012.
CUNHA, Murilo Bastos da Cunha. Manual de fontes de informação. 2. ed. Brasília: Briquet de Lemos, 2020.
ERIKSEN, Mette Brandt; FRANDSEN, Tove Faber. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. Journal of The Medical Library Association, v. 106, n. 4, p.420-431, Oct. 2018.
IAKOVOU, Kostas; SCHULPIS, Kleopatra. Web medical information produces anxiety in parents of infants with suspected galactosemia. Reviews on Environmental Health, v. 34, n. 2, p.219-221, June 2019.
LIMA, João Alberto de Oliveira. Pesquisa-ação em Ciência da Informação. In: MUELLER, Suzana P. M. (org.). Métodos para a pesquisa em Ciência da Informação. Brasília: Thesaurus, 2007. Cap. 3. p. 63-82.
LIRA, Rodrigo Pessoa Cavalcanti; ROCHA, Eduardo Melani. PICOT: Imprescriptible items in a clinical research question. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, v. 82, n. 2, p. v, Mar./Apr. 2019.
KORSTJENS, Irene; MOSER, Albine. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. part 2: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2. European Journal of General Practice, v. 23, n. 1, p. 274-279, Oct. 2017.
MARCOS-PABLOS, Samuel; GARCÍA-PEÑALVO, Francisco J. Information retrieval methodology for aiding scientific database search. Soft Computing, v. 24, n. 8, p. 5551-5560, Oct. 2018.
MCMULLAN, Miriam. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: How this affects the patient–health professional relationship. Patient Education and Counseling, v. 63, n. 1-2, p.24-28, Oct. 2006.
METHLEY, Abigail M. et al. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, v. 14, n. 1, p. 1-10, Nov. 2014.
RICHARDSON, W. Scott. et al. A.The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, Philadelphia, v. 123, n. 3, p.A12-A13, Nov./Dec. 1995.
SALVADOR-OLIVÁN, José Antonio; MARCO-CUENCA, Gonzalo; ARQUERO-AVILÉS, Rosario. Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. Journal of The Medical Library Association, v. 107, n. 2, p.210-221, Apr. 2019.
SIDDAWAY, Andy P.; WOOD, Alex M.; HEDGES, Larry V. How to do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, v. 70, n. 1, p.747-770, Jan. 2019.
SPECKMAN, Rebecca A.; FRIEDLY, Janna L. Asking Structured, Answerable Clinical Questions Using the Population, Intervention/Comparator, Outcome (PICO) Framework. PM&R, v. 11, n. 5, p. 548-553, Apr. 2019.
STERN, Cindy; JORDAN, Zoe; MCARTHUR, Alexa. Developing the review question and inclusion criteria: The first steps in conducting a systematic review. AJN, American Journal of Nursing, v. 114, n. 4, p. 53-56, Apr. 2014.
STRAUS, Sharon E. et al. Evidence‐Based Medicine: How to Practice and Team EBM. 5 ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 2019.
THE JOANNA BRIGGS INSTITUTE. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015 edition: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. Adelaide, Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2015.
WILDRIDGE, Valerie; BELL, Lucy. How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Information and Libraries Journal, v. 19, n. 2, p. 113-115, Jun. 2002.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
ConCI adopts the CC BY 4.0 License 
, where licensees have the right to copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works from it, provided that due credit is given to the author or licensor.
ConCI considers that the author holds the copyright on his/her production, but the author must agree to grant the journal the right to the first publication. In addition, the author must agree that:
• in any publications in institutional repositories, book chapters or other productions resulting from works published in ConCI, due credit must be given to the initial publication.
• are authorized to publish and distribute their work online (eg, in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any time before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of the work published by ConCI.
Licenciada por 