Utilization and Perceived Problems of Online Medical Resources and Search Tools Among Different Groups of European Physicians

Background: There is a large body of research suggesting that medical professionals have unmet information needs during their daily routines. Objective: To investigate which online resources and tools different groups of European physicians use to gather medical information and to identify barriers that prevent the successful retrieval of medical information from the Internet. Methods: A detailed Web-based questionnaire was sent out to approximately 15,000 physicians across Europe and disseminated through partner websites. 500 European physicians of different levels of academic qualification and medical specialization were included in the analysis. Self-reported frequency of use of different types of online resources, perceived importance of search tools, and perceived search barriers were measured. Comparisons were made across different levels of qualification (qualified physicians vs physicians in training, medical specialists without professorships vs medical professors) and specialization (general practitioners vs specialists). Results: Most participants were Internet-savvy, came from Austria (43%, 190/440) and Switzerland (31%, 137/440), were above 50 years old (56%, 239/430), stated high levels of medical work experience, had regular patient contact and were employed in nonacademic health care settings (41%, 177/432). All groups reported frequent use of general search engines and cited restricted accessibility to good quality information as a dominant barrier to finding medical information on the Internet. Physicians in training reported the most frequent use of Wikipedia (56%, 31/55). Specialists were more likely than general practitioners to use medical research databases (68%, 185/274 vs 27%, 24/88; chi(2)(2)=44.905, P<.001). General practitioners were more likely than specialists to report lack of time as a barrier towards finding information on the Internet (59%, 50/85 vs 43%, 111/260; chi(2)(1)=7.231, P=.007) and to restrict their search by language (48%, 43/89 vs 35%, 97/278; chi(2)(1)=5.148, P=.023). They frequently consult general health websites (36%, 31/87 vs 19%, 51/269; chi(2)(2)=12.813, P=.002) and online physician network communities (17%, 15/86, chi(2)(2)=9.841 vs 6%, 17/270, P<.001). Conclusions: The reported inaccessibility of relevant, trustworthy resources on the Internet and frequent reliance on general search engines and social media among physicians require further attention. Possible solutions may be increased governmental support for the development and popularization of user-tailored medical search tools and open access to high-quality content for physicians. The potential role of collaborative tools in providing the psychological support and affirmation normally given by medical colleagues needs further consideration. Tools that speed up quality evaluation and aid selection of relevant search results need to be identified. In order to develop an adequate search tool, a differentiated approach considering the differing needs of physician subgroups may be beneficial.