Aspects of job satisfaction concerning the content of the profession seem to increase job satisfaction, and aspects concerning employment conditions seem to decrease job satisfaction.

Objectives: For general practitioners (GPs), an important obstacle to practising evidence-based medicine is lack of time. An evidence-based answering service was developed that took over searching and appraisal of medical evidence from the GPs. GPs sent in questions, and the informationist formulated the answers. Our objectives were to find out if such an evidence-based answering service was feasible, including assessing the effect of the answers on GPs and their patients, as reported by the GPs. Methods: After attending a workshop on building well-formulated questions from daily practice, the GPs sent in questions to the informationist. The literature was searched, the relevant information was appraised, and the answers to the questions were formulated. With a questionnaire, the effect of the answers on the GP and the patient was assessed, as well as the perceived barriers to implementing the answers. Results: From 26 GPs, 61 questions were received. For 12% of questions, information was found with the highest evidence level, while for 36%, no information was found. However, for 89% of the questions for which no information could be found, the answer 'no information found' did have an effect on the GP concerned. In total, 81% of all the answers had an effect on the GP, and, according to the GP, 52% had an effect on the patient. Few barriers to implementing the evidence were perceived. Most of the answers were found in Pubmed / Medline, the Cochrane Library and Embase. Conclusions: This study indicates that an evidence-based answering service can have an impact on GPs and their patients. Librarians can provide an evidence-based answering service for GPs and their patients. The evidence-based answering service for GPs in this study had an impact on 81% of the GPs and on 52% of their patients. Although for one-third of the questions no evidence-based answer was found, this message in itself had an impact on 89% of the GPs. An informationist as mediator between medical information and doctors can save doctors' time.

In the period 1994-1997, the printed Index Medicus was the most effective literature retrieval method for GPs. For inexperienced GPs, there is a need for training in electronic literature retrieval methods.

BackgroundLearning styles determine how people manage new information. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) involves the management of information in clinical practice. As a consequence, the way in which a person uses EBM can be related to his or her learning style. In order to tailor EBM education to the individual learner, this study aims to determine whether there is a relationship between an individual's learning style and EBM competence (knowledge/skills, attitude, behaviour).MethodsIn 2008, we conducted a survey among 140 novice GP trainees in order to assess their EBM competence and learning styles (Accommodator, Diverger, Assimilator, Converger, or mixed learning style).ResultsThe trainees' EBM knowledge/skills (scale 0-15; mean 6.8; 95%CI 6.4-7.2) were adequate and their attitudes towards EBM (scale 0-100; mean 63; 95%CI 61.3-64.3) were positive. We found no relationship between their knowledge/skills or attitudes and their learning styles (p = 0.21; p = 0.19). Of the trainees, 40% used guidelines to answer clinical questions and 55% agreed that the use of guidelines is the most appropriate way of applying EBM in general practice. Trainees preferred using evidence from summaries to using evidence from single studies. There were no differences in medical decision-making or in EBM use (p = 0.59) for the various learning styles. However, we did find a link between having an Accommodating or Converging learning style and making greater use of intuition. Moreover, trainees with different learning styles expressed different ideas about the optimal use of EBM in primary care.ConclusionsWe found that EBM knowledge/skills and EBM attitudes did not differ with respect to the learning styles of GP trainees. However, we did find differences relating to the use of intuition and the trainees' ideas regarding the use of evidence in decision-making.