Hundreds of response meant it was more time-consuming to analyse but here are the headlines:

Profession of respondents

  • 48% doctors/physicians
  • 14% nurse
  • 14% librarian/information specialist
  • 8% academics
  • 16% other

Reasons for using Trip

  • 42% literature review
  • 30% clinical Q&A
  • 15% keeping up to date
  • 8% teaching
  • 5% research

Any suggestions for new sites to add

The top 5 suggestions being:

  • Cochrane
  • Cortellis
  • Duodecim
  • ECRI
  • Embase

Suggested improvements

There were very few that got more than one mention:

  • Advanced search – already on our ‘to do’ list
  • Friendlier presentation – will have to dig deeper to understand that
  • Easier storage of searches – possibly can be rolled in to the advanced search work
  • Make it all free – alas, not possible
  • More full articles – we’re trying our best
  • More Public Health content – we can add extra public health journal content, not sure of any other sources

Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience on Trip?

What was nice to see was overwhelmingly positive comments (including my favourite: “Go further, please, you are unique!“), but a few constructive comments and some negatives:

  • ChatGPT accepts questions and answers in many languages….
  • a DSI (selective dissemination of information) newsletter would be interesting where we ask to stay updated on a topic
  • I often don’t get great results from TRIP – I do try! Don’t get on with advanced or pico search functionality, although
  • Not great. Also need a better advanced search way better; like Ebsco databases
  • Preplexity, elicit and evidence hunt are all great alternatives