临床医师对医学检验文献信息需求的实证研究

An Empirical Study on Clinicians’ Information Needs Regarding Medical Laboratory Literature

摘要: 目的：明确临床医师在诊疗场景中对医学检验文献的信息需求特征、获取行为及主要障碍，为医院知识服务转型提供实证依据。方法：采用分层随机抽样法，对盐城市第一人民医院122名临床医师开展问卷调查与半结构化深度访谈。问卷经信效度检验，数据经SPSS 26.0进行描述性统计、卡方检验与因子分析；访谈资料采用主题分析法提炼核心观点。结果：临床医师对检验文献的需求呈“高频次、强时效、重实证”特征，聚焦于检验项目临床意义解读(88.4%)、最新指南共识(76.2%)及新技术应用(65.5%)。首选信息渠道为同行交流(82.1%)与检验科电话咨询(75.4%)；数字资源使用中CNKI (68.2%)、PubMed (45.3%)占比较高，仅28.5%会查阅检验专业期刊。主要获取障碍包括时间成本过高(M = 4.62 ± 0.48)、信息筛选困难(M = 4.35 ± 0.51)及检索技能不足(M = 3.98 ± 0.62)。职称差异分析显示，高级职称医师更关注前沿科研动态，初中级医师更依赖基础解读与规范(χ² = 9.84, P < 0.05)。结论：临床医师对医学检验文献存在明确且迫切的场景化需求，但受时间、技能与服务供给模式限制，信息获取效率偏低。建议构建检验知识图谱、开展分层信息素养培训、推行“图情–检验”协同服务，以打通医检信息壁垒，支撑循证临床决策。

Abstract: Objective: To identify the characteristics, acquisition behaviors, and primary barriers regarding clinicians’ information needs for medical laboratory literature in clinical scenarios, thereby providing empirical evidence for the transformation of hospital knowledge services. Methods: A stratified random sampling method was utilized to conduct questionnaire surveys and semi-structured in-depth interviews with 122 clinicians from the First People’s Hospital of Yancheng. The questionnaire was evaluated for reliability and validity. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 for descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and factor analysis, while the interview data were processed using thematic analysis to extract core themes. Results: Clinicians’ demand for laboratory literature is characterized by high frequency, strict timeliness, and a strong emphasis on evidence. Their needs primarily focus on interpreting the clinical significance of laboratory test items (88.4%), the latest consensus guidelines (76.2%), and the application of new technologies (65.5%). The preferred information channels are peer communication (82.1%) and telephone consultations with the clinical laboratory department (75.4%). Among digital resources, CNKI (68.2%) and PubMed (45.3%) are highly utilized, whereas only 28.5% of clinicians regularly consult specialized laboratory journals. The main barriers to information access include excessive time costs (M = 4.62 ± 0.48), difficulties in information screening (M = 4.35 ± 0.51), and insufficient retrieval skills (M = 3.98 ± 0.62). Analysis based on professional titles reveals that senior physicians pay greater attention to cutting-edge research trends, whereas junior and intermediate-level physicians rely more heavily on basic interpretations and standard protocols (χ² = 9.84, P < 0.05). Conclusion: Clinicians exhibit distinct and urgent scenario-based needs for medical laboratory literature; however, their information acquisition efficiency remains relatively low due to constraints related to time, retrieval skills, and current service supply models. It is recommended to construct a medical laboratory knowledge graph, conduct tiered information literacy training, and implement collaborative services between Library and Information Science and laboratory medicine, in order to break down information barriers between clinical and laboratory medicine and support evidence-based clinical decision-making.