Use of social media for information discovery and delivery among information professionals in Pakistan

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to examine how information professionals select a social media channel for information discovery and delivery. This analysis was focused to provide usage based ranking of social media channels for information discovery and delivery. This study has also measured the preference of social media as compared with other information and communication channels such as radio, TV, newspapers, etc., for information discovery and delivery. This study compared the global social media rank with the study rank to record the variances in the light of uses and gratification theory.

Design/methodology/approach

For this quantitative research study a self-administered survey questionnaire was used to collect data from the participants of the study. Sample of this study was 700 information professionals necessarily user of social media.

Findings

Findings of this reveals that social media is the most preferred channel for information discovery and delivery among information professionals and study validates the assumption of uses and gratification theory with a view that information professionals are independent and active users of social media and global rank of social media is significantly different from the rank developed in this study.

Research limitations/implications

The present study is limited to information professionals only and considers social media (only top 20 sites) as an information and communication channel among information professionals.

Practical implications

This study has determined the preference of social media as an information and communication channel as compared with other information and communication channels and present a ranking based on usage among information professional, which is significantly different from the existing global user based ranking.

Social implications

Social media provides versatility of information in different forms and large numbers of information professionals are the users of social media around globe. This study shall help information professional to select appropriate channels for information discovery and delivery. Usage based ranking provided in this study shall stream line the social media practices at large.

Originality/value

This study has developed a usage based rank of top social media. This study elaborated the preference of social media as an information and communication channel.

Related collections

Most cited references 55

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how

Lehana Thabane, Jinhui Ma, Rong Chu … (2010)

Pilot studies for phase III trials - which are comparative randomized trials designed to provide preliminary evidence on the clinical efficacy of a drug or intervention - are routinely performed in many clinical areas. Also commonly know as "feasibility" or "vanguard" studies, they are designed to assess the safety of treatment or interventions; to assess recruitment potential; to assess the feasibility of international collaboration or coordination for multicentre trials; to increase clinical experience with the study medication or intervention for the phase III trials. They are the best way to assess feasibility of a large, expensive full-scale study, and in fact are an almost essential pre-requisite. Conducting a pilot prior to the main study can enhance the likelihood of success of the main study and potentially help to avoid doomed main studies. The objective of this paper is to provide a detailed examination of the key aspects of pilot studies for phase III trials including: 1) the general reasons for conducting a pilot study; 2) the relationships between pilot studies, proof-of-concept studies, and adaptive designs; 3) the challenges of and misconceptions about pilot studies; 4) the criteria for evaluating the success of a pilot study; 5) frequently asked questions about pilot studies; 7) some ethical aspects related to pilot studies; and 8) some suggestions on how to report the results of pilot investigations using the CONSORT format.

0 comments Cited 540 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy

Mubashir Arain, Michael J Campbell, Cindy L Cooper … (2010)

Background In 2004, a review of pilot studies published in seven major medical journals during 2000-01 recommended that the statistical analysis of such studies should be either mainly descriptive or focus on sample size estimation, while results from hypothesis testing must be interpreted with caution. We revisited these journals to see whether the subsequent recommendations have changed the practice of reporting pilot studies. We also conducted a survey to identify the methodological components in registered research studies which are described as 'pilot' or 'feasibility' studies. We extended this survey to grant-awarding bodies and editors of medical journals to discover their policies regarding the function and reporting of pilot studies. Methods Papers from 2007-08 in seven medical journals were screened to retrieve published pilot studies. Reports of registered and completed studies on the UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio database were retrieved and scrutinized. Guidance on the conduct and reporting of pilot studies was retrieved from the websites of three grant giving bodies and seven journal editors were canvassed. Results 54 pilot or feasibility studies published in 2007-8 were found, of which 26 (48%) were pilot studies of interventions and the remainder feasibility studies. The majority incorporated hypothesis-testing (81%), a control arm (69%) and a randomization procedure (62%). Most (81%) pointed towards the need for further research. Only 8 out of 90 pilot studies identified by the earlier review led to subsequent main studies. Twelve studies which were interventional pilot/feasibility studies and which included testing of some component of the research process were identified through the UKCRN Portfolio database. There was no clear distinction in use of the terms 'pilot' and 'feasibility'. Five journal editors replied to our entreaty. In general they were loathe to publish studies described as 'pilot'. Conclusion Pilot studies are still poorly reported, with inappropriate emphasis on hypothesis-testing. Authors should be aware of the different requirements of pilot studies, feasibility studies and main studies and report them appropriately. Authors should be explicit as to the purpose of a pilot study. The definitions of feasibility and pilot studies vary and we make proposals here to clarify terminology.