towards a more data oriented medical reseach environment - survey results
TRANSCRIPT
Towards a more data oriented medical research environment
-Survey Results on information and data practice
ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
Lars MuellerChristoph SzepanskiThomas WetzelHans-Cristoph Hobohm
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
2
Project context
Aim of the Survey
Method
Results
Conclusion
Implementation details
References
Agenda
Method Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
2
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
3
Project context IMethod Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
3
Preferred Project objective = development of a web application Foster hypothesis generation from large
(heterogenous) databases of medical research data Design an information environment to support
data analysis and identification of relevantknowledge gaps
Project partner: OpEn.SC Charité Berlin
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
4
Project context IIMethod Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
4
Preferred Data-intensive science will be an important element of future research (Bell et al. 2009)
Currently there is a priority to hypothesis-oriented research
Cultural chance how to use data for hypothesisgeneration can be technically supported (Thessen and Patterson 2011)
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
5
Aim of the survey
5
Aim Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
How medical professionals deal with “their” data in practice
At which points in the problemfinding process modified forms of data presentation help researchingphysicians to make better use oftheir creative potential
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
6
Method I
6
Method Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
Survey guidelines designed to ascertain... information and communication
behaviour Cooperation Research data handling Creativity and problem solving skills
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
7
Method II
7
Method Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
Mixed method approach Explorative, guideline-based individual
interviews: (n = 5 ; duration: 30 minutes ; partly
transcribed) Online survey:
(n = 10, including clinical physicians and non-physicians => core target group)
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
8
Method III
8
Method Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
Premiss: research process begins with dataanalysis and ends with a new researchproject
Any differences and similarities betweenthis model and practice would indicate possible starting points and areas forintervention in the research process
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
9
Results I – Reasons I
Method Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
9
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
10
Reasons II
Method Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
Persuing an (own)idea
RAREOFTEN
Exploration of data (unfocussed interest)
Sometimes – Inspiration from literature Motivation – persuing ideas, rather than find new one
10
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
11
Data selection
Method Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
Data centres Targeted collection
of new data
RAREFREQUENTLY
Directly re-use from colleagues
Existing patient data
A bit of both – Journals Potential lies in the improved integration of data from different sources
11
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
12
External Resources
Method Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
PubMed and journals Unspecified internet
usage (Google...)
RAREFREQUENTLY
gScholar
Sometimes – Reference tools and interpersonal communication
Goal of DCT should be to integrate as many secondary information sources as possible
12
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
13
Displaying data
Method Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
Diagrams and curves Table with numerical
values
NeglectedPreferred
Partly: complex visualisations
Potential lies in new visualisation techniques, also to promote awareness and to increase acceptance
13
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
14
Summary
Method Results Conclusion ClosingIntroduction
Preferred Reason for data analysis is usually an (own) idea, while searching for an idea is almost never the reason
Preferred Attitudes towards complex visualisations are mixed
Preferred Individual working methods are preferred
Data analysis usually take place in the workplace and towards the end of the working day
Results of data analysis primarily used in publications and less so for research
14
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
15
Conclusion
Method ResultsResults ClosingIntroduction Conclusion
Integration of secondary information sources
Close ties with external data centres
Innovative visualisations as an option
No social media needed
15
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
16
DCT-Portal (Prototype)
Method ResultsConclusion ClosingIntroduction ConclusionMethod ResultsConclusion ClosingIntroduction Conclusion
16
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
17
QueryBuilderMethod ResultsConclusion ClosingIntroduction ConclusionMethod ResultsResults ClosingIntroduction Conclusion
17
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
18
ResearchFieldExplorer
Method ResultsConclusion ClosingIntroduction ConclusionMethod ResultsResults ClosingIntroduction Conclusion
18
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
19
• Bell, G, T. Hey, and A. Szalay (2009). Computer Science: Beyond the Data Deluge. Science 323, 1297-1298.
• Case, Donald O. (2005).Principle of Least Effort. In Fisher, Karen E.; Erdelez, Sandra; McKechnie, Lynne (Eds.): Theories of Information Behavior. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 289-292.
• Cooke, Colin R, and Theodore J. Iwashyna (2013). Using Existing Data to Address Important Clinical Questions in Critical Care. Critical Care Medicine 41, 886-896.
• Cropley, Arthur, and David Cropley (2009). Fostering creativity. A diagnostic approach for higher education and organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Kell, Douglas B, and Stephen G. Oliver (2004). Here is the evidence, now what is the hypothesis? The complementary roles of inductive and hypothesis-driven science in the post-genomic era. In BioEssays 26, 99-105.
References I
Method ResultsConclusion ClosingIntroduction ConclusionMethod ResultsResults ReferencesIntroduction Conclusion
19
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
20
• Hoover, Steven M, and John F. Feldhusen (1994). Scientific Problem Solving and Problem Finding: A Theoretical Model. In Problembfinding, problem solving, and creativity. Creativity research, ed. by Mark A. Runco, Norwood N.J: Ablex Pub. Corp., 201-219.
• Huizing, Ard, and Mary Cavanagh (2011). Planting contemporary practice theory in the garden of information science. In Information Research 16 (4).
• Tenopir, Carol; Allard, Suzie; Douglass, Kimberly; Aydinoglu, Arsev U.; Wu, Lei; Read, Eleanor; Maribeth Manoff, Mike Frame and Cameron Neylon (2011). Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions. In PLoS ONE 6, E21101.
• Thessen, Anne, and David Patterson (2011). Data issues in the life sciences.ZooKeys 150, 15.
References II
Method ResultsConclusion ClosingIntroduction ConclusionMethod ResultsResults ReferencesIntroduction Conclusion
20
Christoph Szepanski ISI2015 | 19-21 May | Zadar
21
Thank you for your attention!
21
DataCreativityTools for Innovation and Research (DCT)http://datacreativity.fh-potsdam.de