Wednesday, October 31, 2007
A search on TRIP locates just two articles, neither particularly pertinent, but one links to "Spook house sporotrichosis. A point-source outbreak of sporotrichosis associated with hay bale props in a Halloween haunted-house."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
"Insidermedicine is a physician-led news organization that allows you to keep on top of the latest medical information by watching our unique videos that are created each and every weekday by our team of medical experts. Our goal is to reach patients, medical doctors and students around the world to ensure that each is receiving a daily "evidence based" health and medical update."
I've embedded the webcast that appears on the homepage today. I don't think this format is typical of the site (it squeezes two minutes of normal speech into 60 seconds - which makes it sound way too speeded up).
|Pulse CO-Oximeter, Extreme Stress, Medical Errors, FluMist Safe for Children|
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
I’ve just searched on TRIP for asthma and the adverts returned (in a prominent position) were:
- 10 Diets rules that work (from http://www.fatloss4idiots.com/)
- Asthma (http://www.healthline.com/)
- Evidence Based Medicine (ebmg.wiley.com)
- Asthma (allergy.healthvilliage.com)
Hardly inspiring! The majority of the adverts are aimed at general internet users – as opposed to our predominantly clinician user-base.
It’s not just TRIP that struggle to make revenue from adverts. Take the BMJ site, one of the most viewed clinical sites on the web. Most of the adverts on their homepage is highlighting other BMJ products e.g. BMJ master classes, BMJ learning.
What I don’t understand and I hope someone can explain, is why there aren’t any better solutions!
On one hand we have pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets desperate to get their message out to clinicians. On the other hand we have a significant number of sites, mainly used by clinicians, keen to boost their income and happy(ish) to accept adverts.
Why the post? I’m hoping someone will read it, knock some heads together and devise a decent system that will relive the pharma companies of some of their advertising monies and in return allow them to place their message so that it’s viewed by clinicians. I can only see this as a ‘win win’.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
When we decided to add the significant number of specialist sites we didn't suspect the issues thrown up relating to usability. Questions we've raised and tried to answer include:
- How do users of TRIP get to know that the specialist sites exist?
- Should the specialist site look like TRIP or do they need their own identity?
- If you go to one specialist site, how likely are you to move to another specialist site?
- How should you navigate, consistently, between sites?
One of the big issues about design and websites is making the functionality 'there'. So if a user need to use/activate a function it is easily 'findable'. However, you have to balance the findability of the function with the relative importance. It makes sense to have the search box displayed prominently but there is little point having the link to this blog equally prominent. At the bottom of the post is a mock-up of the new homepage. Will it still be like this at launch, we're not sure.
So we're trying to get the balance right. One thing we won't do is rush to meet some self-imposed deadline to have the new site ready and launched. We may still get the site out by the end of the week, but only if we're happy.
Friday, October 12, 2007
As part of the new launch TRIP will be releasing around 30 specialist search engines, ranging from Allergy to Urology. Users searching the specialist TRIPs will simultaneously search the core TRIP content plus the last 5 years articles from top 10-15 journals in that speciality. But what is the rationale?
We know that restricting searchers to only ‘evidence based’ material (secondary reviewed material) would only answer around 20-25% of the clinical questions. It was for that reason that TRIP added more material (core primary research, eTextbooks etc). Our aim is to allow clinicians to answer their questions using the best available evidence. We do this pretty well with only 15% of our users saying they find the material they’re after less than half the time. Another 19% find information around half the time. So what happens to them? Do we send them to Google? PubMed? both have advantages but generally they’re unlikely to help a busy clinician!
The specialist TRIPs intend to fill the area between the existing TRIP and the abyss that is Google and the full Medline. Take the following example:
Search Term – awareness
- TRIP – very few relating to anaesthetics.
- Anaesthetics TRIP – over 200 new results, most related to anaesthetic awareness, large number of the top 20 results pertinent to the topic and from major anaesthetics journals.
- Pubmed – 47,201 results, non of the top 20 relate to anaesthetics!
- Google – 111,000,000 results!
The above is a clear example of the superiority of allowing key specialist material into a search. We're not claiming that it will as clear cut in every search, but there will (generally) be a new chunk of pertinent material. This is just the first step, I have no doubt they'll evolve over time!
Monday, October 08, 2007
- Prophylactic antibiotics in urodynamics: A systematic review of effectiveness and safety.
- Torn labial frenum in isolation not pathognomonic of physical abuse.
As a slight aside, but more good news for TRIP, we are getting very close to breaking the 150,000 searches per week.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
- Design work (minor)
- Minor corrections
- Server set-up (a more significant job, but more predictable)
It looks as though all the work should be completed towards the end of next week. Making the deployment likely sometime in the week starting 15th October.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
An interesting part of the post reported:
Jupiter reported previously that "71 percent of online consumers use search engines to find health-related information, but only 16 percent find the information they are looking for."
Compare this with our recent survey findings which asked the question "How often do you find the information you're after?":
- 13% - find the information they wanted all the time
- 53% - find the information they wanted most of the time
- 19% - finds the information about half the time
- 15% - find the information less than half the time