Matching Items (3)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

151132-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Technology is rapidly evolving, and mental health professionals are increasingly using technology in their clinical work. In reaction to this shift, it is important that research examines the ethical implications of online behaviors. The current study examined the online practices of graduate students in the mental health field and generated

Technology is rapidly evolving, and mental health professionals are increasingly using technology in their clinical work. In reaction to this shift, it is important that research examines the ethical implications of online behaviors. The current study examined the online practices of graduate students in the mental health field and generated prediction models for online client searches and best practices in informed consent and online disclosure. The sample consisted of 316 graduate students in counseling, clinical, and school programs. Of those with clinical experience, a third had utilized the Internet to find information about their client. Progress in the participants' program, as measured by credits completed or in progress, and years of social networking experience were positively related to online client searches. The vast majority (over 80%) of individuals who conducted an online search did not obtain informed consent prior to the search. Curiosity was the most frequent reason given for conducting a client search. Previous professional discussions and belief that information online is private were not significant predictors of obtaining informed consent. The final analysis examined disclosure of client information and found that lower scores on ethical decision-making and years of social networking experience predicted online disclosure. This study is an important step in understanding the implications of the intersection of technology use, ethics, and clinical practice of graduate mental health professionals.
ContributorsHarris, Sara Elisabeth (Author) / Robinson Kurpius, Sharon E (Thesis advisor) / Tracey, Terence (Committee member) / Kinnier, Richard (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description

As health information professionals we are familiar with specialized resources such as PubMed and CINAHL but less familiar with general freely available tools such as Google, Google Scholar, and other open Google tools. We wondered:

1. What Google tools are Health Sciences Researchers and Healthcare Professionals using, and how are they

As health information professionals we are familiar with specialized resources such as PubMed and CINAHL but less familiar with general freely available tools such as Google, Google Scholar, and other open Google tools. We wondered:

1. What Google tools are Health Sciences Researchers and Healthcare Professionals using, and how are they using them?
2. How effective are Google and/or Google Scholar for literature searching?
3. What other research is needed in this area?

Methods
We searched for: ‘Google’ across five health sciences and health sciences related databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycInfo, PubMed, Web of Science) and in Google Scholar (*For Google Scholar we searched: health AND google). We reviewed the first 100 citations from each database and selected results that: 1) Mentioned use of a Google tool, or 2) Discussed the effectiveness of Google or Google Scholar in scholarly literature searching. Out of the second group, we selected and read the 10 most relevant articles discussing the effectiveness of Google and/or Google Scholar for literature searching. We tried out recommended best practices to search for topics we had previously searched only in subject specific databases.

Results
Health Sciences Researchers and Healthcare Professionals use many Google tools for a variety of purposes. Each tool was used in different ways by authors writing in the Health Sciences (see pie charts and examples in poster). Regarding literature searching the poster includes Google Scholar content sources, Top Search Strategies for Google Scholar, and Considerations for using Google Scholar for literature searching.

Conclusions
Health Science researchers use a variety of Google tools to gather and manipulate data, and to visualize and disseminate results. Health care professionals use Google tools to facilitate interventions and for interactive educational materials. For Literature searching our results encourage using Google Scholar to complement subject specific databases. Its unique content makes it a valuable resource for finding additional documents.

ContributorsPannabecker, Virginia (Author) / Pardon, Kevin (Author)
Created2013-07-26
367-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Objectives: While PhD dissertations are typically accessible as part of a university library’s general collection, or as content within a proprietary database, many other terminal degree projects remain invisible and inaccessible to a greater audience. This poster will describe the development and creation of a digital repository collection containing doctor

Objectives: While PhD dissertations are typically accessible as part of a university library’s general collection, or as content within a proprietary database, many other terminal degree projects remain invisible and inaccessible to a greater audience. This poster will describe the development and creation of a digital repository collection containing doctor of nursing practice (DNP) student’s final projects.

Methods: The “Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Final Projects Collection” was created over the course of one semester and included initial discussions with program faculty and administrators, the creation of a student consent form, the development of a process for adding student work to the repository collection, and a presentation to graduating students. This poster will describe the process in more detail, discuss benefits and challenges, as well as highlight the considerations to keep in mind when developing and creating a digital collection of student work. Additionally, best practices and lessons learned will also be described to provide valuable information to others considering creating this type of collection at their own institution.

Results: At the end of the first semester of implementation, twenty student projects existed in our public collection. On the whole, both faculty and students were pleased to have a collection highlighting the work being done in their program. Valuable lessons were learned that can be applied in the next semester of implementation. Specifically, metadata consistency was an issue during the initial uploading process. Gaining select faculty and student buy-in by allaying concerns related to some student’s wanting to publish in a peer-reviewed journal on the topic of their final project remains vital.

Conclusion: Creating open access collections of student applied final projects or capstone projects allows for greater visibility of this type of often overlooked student scholarship. Specifically, the final projects showcased can now be found and accessed by potential employers, researchers, other schools, and other DNP students. In many cases these final projects have applied real-world impact related to answering clinical questions or patient care that should be shared with the world.

ContributorsPardon, Kevin (Author)
Created2017-05-30