Bridging the gap between research and practice: The development of a Digital Library of research syntheses

CIN - Computers Informatics Nursing

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 85-94

  Barroso, Julie ^a,c   Edlin, April ^b   Sandelowski, Margarete ^b   Lambe, Camille ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital library; HIV; Qualitative metasynthesis

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPUTER INTERFACE; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LIBRARY; META ANALYSIS; MOTHER; NURSE; NURSE PRACTITIONER; NURSING; NURSING METHODOLOGY RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REVIEW; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; FORECASTING; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HIV INFECTIONS; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; LIBRARIES, DIGITAL; LIBRARIES, NURSING; META-ANALYSIS; MOTHERS; NORTH CAROLINA; NURSE CLINICIANS; NURSE PRACTITIONERS; NURSING METHODOLOGY RESEARCH; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; STEREOTYPING; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; WOMEN;

EID: 33645301283     PISSN: 15382931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00024665-200603000-00007     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Writing the proposal for a qualitative research methodology project. Qual Health Res. 2003;13(6):781-820.
2. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Motherhood in the context of maternal HIV infection. Res Nurs Health. 2003;26(6):470-482.
3. Sandelowski M, Lambe C, Barroso J. Stigma in HIV-positive women. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2004;36(2):122-128.
4. Barroso J, Sandelowski M. Substance abuse in HIV-positive women. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2004;15(5):48-59.
5. Borgman CL. Digital libraries and the continuum of scholarly communications. J Doc. 2000;56(4):412-430.
6. Marchionini G, Fox E. Progress toward digital libraries: augmentation through integration. Inf Proc Manag. 1999;35(3):219-225.
7. Fox EA, Urs SR. Digital libraries. In: Cronin B, ed. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Vol. 36. Medford: Information Today; 2002:503-589.
8. Bishop AP. Document structure and digital libraries: how researchers mobilize information in journal articles. Inf Proc Manag. 1999;35(3):255-279.
9. Fox EA, Hix D, Nowell LT, et al. Users, user interfaces, and objects: envision, a digital library. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1993;44(8):480-491.
10. Evans D. Database searches for qualitative research. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90(3):290-293.
11. Trinder L, Reynolds S, eds. Evidence-Based Practice: A Critical Appraisal. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science; 2000.
12. Sandelowski M. Using qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2004;14(10):1366-1386.
13. Anderson JR. A Guide to the Clinical Care of Women With HIV. Rockville, MD: Womencare; 2001.
14. Casey KM, Cohen F, Hughes A. ANAC's Core Curriculum for HIV/AIDS Nursing. Philadelphia, PA: Nursecom; 1996.
15. Kirton CA, Talotta D, Zwolski K. Handbook of HIV/AIDS Nursing. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2001.
16. Scarpa R, Smeltzer SC, Jasion B. Attitudes of nurses toward computerization: a replication. Comput Nurs. 1992;10(2):72-80.
17. Schwirian PM, Malone JA, Stone VJ, Nunley B, Francisco T. Computers in nursing practice: a comparison of the attitudes of nurses and nursing students. Comput Nurs. 1989;7(4):168-177.
18. American Nurses Association. Today's registered nurse: numbers and demographics. Available at: http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/fsdemogrpt.htm. Accessed March 12, 2004.
19. McCannon M, O'Neal PV. Results of a national survey indicating information technology skills needed by nurses at time of entry into the work force. J Nurs Educ. 2003;42(8):337-340.
20. Dumas JA, Dietz EO, Connolly PM. Nurse practitioners' use of computer technologies in practice. Comput Nurs. 2001;19(1):34-40.
21. Marchionini G. Browsing strategies. In: Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
22. Nielsen J. Why frames suck most of the time. Available at: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html. Accessed March 30, 2004.
23. Broadhead GJ. Using HTML frames for institutional websites. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation. New York: ACM; September 1998:278-285.
24. Priestley M. Navigation issues in hypertext: documenting complex hierarchies with HTML frames. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation. New York: ACM; 1997:223-235.
25. Chimera R, Shneiderman B. An exploratory evaluation of three interfaces for browsing large hierarchical tables of contents. ACM Trans Inf Syst. 1994;12(4):383-406.
26. IBM. Design. Available at: http://www-3.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou_ext.nsf/ Publish/561. Accessed April 1, 2004.
27. National Cancer Institute. Research-based Web design & usability guidelines. Available at: http://usability.gov/guidelines/. Accessed April 5, 2004.
28. Zaphiris P, Mtei L. Depth vs. breadth in the arrangement of Web links. Available at: www.otal.umd.edu/SHORE/bs04. Accessed March 22, 2004.
29. Larson K, Czerwinski M. Web page design: implications of memory, structure and scent for information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM; 1998:25-32.
30. Piolat A, Roussey JY, Thunin O. Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising. Int J Human Comput Stud. 1997;47(4):565-589.
31. Van Nimwegen C, Pouw M, Van Oostendorp H. The influence of structure and reading-manipulation on usability of hypertexts. Interact Comput. 1999;12(1):7-21.
32. Baker JR. The impact of paging vs. scrolling on reading online text passages. Available at: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/51/ paging_scrolling.htm. Accessed March 22, 2004.
33. Tullis TS, Boynton JL, Hersh H. Readability of fonts in the windows environment. Interactive poster session at CHI 95 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems; Denver, CO; May 1995.
34. Bernard M, Lida B, Riley S, Hackler T, Janzen K. A comparison of popular online fonts: which size and type is best? Available at: http://psychology. wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm. Accessed March 23, 2004.
35. Nielsen J. Let users control font size. Available at: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html. Accessed April 1, 2004.
36. Chadwick-Dias A, McNulty M, Tullis T. Web usability and age: how design changes can improve performance. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Universal Usability. New York: ACM; 2003:30-37.