ELISAD European Internet Gateway on Alcohol and other Drugs / Interim Research Report Oct. 2002 / back to table of contents

Annex 7   

First gateway users consultation report

Anne Singer, Elisad, in charge of this consultation

contents:

Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Results

4. Use of the results

5. Conclusion

Summary

Following the advise of the DESIRE Handbook, I proposed to the Gateway partners, during our Lisbon meeting in February 2002, to organise a consultation of some future users of our Gateway. The proposition was agreed.

A questionnaire was set up, in three languages (English, French and German) and sent in March to a panel of professionals expecting to be these future users. 147 filled questionnaires were collected end of April.

Main results:

promotion of the project

better knowledge of the future gateways users

better knowledge of their expectations concerning the gateway and needs in Internet search

consequent input of the future gateway users into the project

a panel of professionals who agreed to participate in the two next consultations (test of prototype and final evaluation)

 

1. Introduction: why a gateway users' consultation?

The idea to organise a future Gateway users consultation is given in the DESIRE Handbook (www.desire.org).

The DESIRE project was financed by the European Union within the frame of its fourth programme «Telematics for research», and its handbook is designed to support libraries and other organisations wanting to set up large-scale information gateways on the Internet.

Being in charge of the Gateway promotion, there are two concepts in this handbook, which I wanted to use:

promotion starts at the beginning of a project,

among the promotion means there is one which consist to inform the target users about the project and even get their input into the project through a consultation.

I explained these views to the Gateway partners during our meeting at the EMCDDA, Lisbon, 6-8 February 2002, who agreed to apply them. A general discussion followed (cf.: Minutes of this meeting), aiming to define our target users.

Our target public should be, in first line, librarians, information specialists, researchers, policy-makers in the AOD (Alcohol and Other Drugs) field, then other AOD and health professionals, practitioners, trainers, prevention workers, students, and finally the general public.

2. Methodology

2.1 - The setting up of a questionnaire

I conceived a questionnaire in English, following some of the advises given in the DESIRE Handbook, questionnaire which was submitted to all partners for agreement.

It consist of 12 parts (see appendix 1):

Who are you? > Name, function, location (organisational, geographical)

Would you say you are > Definition of the area of activity

What are your areas of interest > Subject knowledge

What is your use of the Internet? > Level of Internet use

Do you think that this gateway will be useful to you? > Needs in general

Which of your needs in information should this gateway fulfil? > Expectations

Describe the subject of your five last searches on the Internet > Detailed needs

Which searching facilities do you use usually? > Current practise of search

Which keywords did you use for your 5 last searches? > Keywords used

Any comment or information you wish to share with us? > Possibility of expression

Websites that should be included in the gateway? > Input

Do you want to be kept informed on the development of the project? To test our prototype? > Maintenance of the contact and future consultations

Questions 1, 2, 3, 4 are «closed questions» and the others «open questions». Questions that aren't compulsive were the three last ones.

Our English partner, Stephan Schulte-Nähring from DrugScope, proofread the questionnaire. I translated it into French and Susanna Prepeliczay in German. (Appendix 1)

The format used is Word, format that can be filled in by anybody.

2.2 - The dissemination of the questionnaire

The questionnaire was sent by two different means:

an general e-mail sending to 393 chosen AOD professionals,

snow-ball system using professional networks mailing-lists, and dissemination within conferences.

General e-mail sending

Being involved in European networking in the AOD field since 1994, I already had a precious address book of around 5 000 professionals in our field.

I selected 393 of them following:

the target users defined in Lisbon,

the choice of AOD professionals that knew me personally (to follow the NetEtiquette).

Snow-ball system

The questionnaire was sent (either in English, French or German following their destination) to (or by) the following mailing-lists and networks:

The Elisad mailing-list (European level)

By the EMCDDA, to all the Reitox Focal points (European level)

The Pompidou Group network (European level)

The SALIS (equivalent of Elisad in the States) mailing-list (international level)

The IHRA (International Harm Reduction Association) network (international level)

The DrugScope mailing-list (UK)

The Archido mailing-list (Germany)

The MILDT (French interministerial mission on drugs and addiction) mailing-list (France)

The ANIT (Association of French AOD professionals) mailing-list (France)

The Toxibase network (France)

To complement this snow-ball system, a flyer explaining the project accompanied with the questionnaire were also available in conferences:

The Prevnet conference of Telematics in Addiction Prevention, 13-16 March, Athens putting together around 70 AOD professionals

The SALIS conference, beginning of April, Washington.

The questionnaire was also present on our website (www.elisad.com) and on the Archido website (www.archido.de) available for any visitors.

Elisad members were also invited to get into action in this dissemination. It is difficult to evaluate exactly was done on this point. Some Eastern Europe countries members did disseminate it to some personal addresses of colleagues. Some documentation centres and information services made the questionnaire visible to their visitors.

2.3 - The creation and development of a GUs (Gateway Users) database

I conceived a database - in the FileMaker Pro software - composed with fields corresponding to the questionnaire, plus some other logistical/calculation fields.

Each time a filled in questionnaire arrived, a datafile was created and answers pasted in the corresponding files. Each new item was added in each field corresponding menu list.

Being tri-lingual, I translated the answers from German and French questionnaires during this database filling in process, so the database is only using English.

During this process, the database fields were in constant evolution.

E.g.: at the beginning the database had only one field for collecting the keywords used by the GUs. Very soon, the collection became too big and I had to classified them and split this keywords field into 13 thematic fields of keywords, following the main thematic sections of our draft of the Evaluation form. At the same time, I established a field containing a list of synonyms encountered among the given keywords.

E.g.: I also created new database fields concerning «simple Internet search» and «cross searches» expressed by the GUs. And so on.

E.g. The «type of searches» field was also split into different specific fields: search on the name of an organisation, search on a geographical area, etc.

Here is a screen caption of part of the keywords interface of the database:

2.4 - The analysis of GUs expectations, needs and type of Internet search

Although there were separate questions on three these points, many GUs expressed their expectations in the «needs» field and reverse. The kinds of searches they are doing are also expressing their needs.

That is why the analysis of these points was done on all these fields together in a specially created interface of the database.

See the appearance of this interface on the next page.

On the left side is the Gus input, and in the bottom and right hand sides the exploitation of these answers.

There are, in each table, two series of numbers: the left-hand column gives this specific GU input and the right-hand column expresses the input of all GUs files.

The analysis of the others answers, causing no problem, were done by simple or cross- questioning the database.

3. Main results

3.1 - Number of questionnaires received and their origin

- 147 questionnaires were received from 25 countries

106 in English + 30 in French + 11 in German

Denmark and Luxembourg are missing. Predominance of France, Germany and UK.

Origin:

- 84 (57% of the answers) are coming from my general mail to 393 GUs, meaning that

21% of them replied to it.

- 63 (43% of the answers) are coming from the "snow ball" system.

3.2 - Completeness of the GUs' answers

I considered as "complete" any questionnaire where all "closed" questions are answered.

I considered "very much complete" any complete questionnaire that is also answering to open questions, giving a list of interesting websites and much input in the number of keywords given.

I considered "nearly complete" any questionnaire where one answer to "closed" questions is missing.

I considered "uncompleted" any questionnaire where two answers to "closed" questions are missing.

I considered "much uncompleted" any questionnaire where more than two answers to "closed" questions are missing.

very much complete: 31 > 21 %

complete : 75 > 51 %

nearly complete: 27 > 18 %

uncompleted: 11 > 7 %

much uncompleted: 3 > 2 %

 

 

 

3.3 - Panel of GUs who answered

34 researchers 23 %

33 librarians 22 %

20 policy-makers 14 %

20 information specialists 14 %

17 practitioners/therapists 12 %

13 prevention officers 9 %

6 students (1 in research, 2 librarians, 2 info specialists, 1 social worker) 4 %

3 social workers 2 %

1 musicians' manager 0,7 %

Remarks:

This panel meets our Lisbon discussion on our target users. (cf. : Lisbon meeting minutes)

Many GUs are having multidisciplinary activities: some can be at the same time «researchers» and «policy-makers», some «info-specialists are also «librarians» or «policy-makers». I looked at their function and answers to classify them in a simple way.

9 of the GUs weren't afraid to say that there were also drug users.

 

3.4 - GUs' position on the usefulness of the project

56 > highly useful 38 %

48 > much useful 33 %

33 > useful 22 %

5 > sometimes useful 3 %

3 commented answers: 3 %

Dont know yet depends what you provide

How could I know before seeing it?

I will see for what!

2 > no answer

Remark: 71 % estimate the project highly or much useful.

3.5 - GUs' motivation for the project

109 (74 %) expressed the desire for receiving regular news on its development

94 (64 %) expressed the desire to test the prototype

108 (74 %) expressed their desire to receive the Elisad journal

Only 34 (23 %) didn't express any desire of any kind.

3.6 - GUs' fields of interest and activity

53 are working specifically in the drug field 36 %

36 are working in the alcohol and drug field 24 %

22 are working in the drug field within a public health institution 15 %

18 in the alcohol, tobacco and drug field 12 %

8 are working specifically in the alcohol field 5 %

6 are working on all addictions 4 %

4 are working in the field of public health 2 %

Remarks:

- People from organisations working specifically on tobacco are missing.

- People specialised in only alcohol are only 5 %

- A majority of GUs that are currently working in the alcohol, tobacco and drug fields, are people that were previously dedicated to drugs only and whose areas has been extended to alcohol and tobacco recently.

25 are interested essentially in prevention

15 are interested essentially in treatment

60 are interested in prevention among other matters

51 are interested in treatment among other matters

37 are interested in prevention and treatment together among other matters

51 are interested in laws and policy among other matters

21 are interested in trade and trafficking among other matters

50 are interested in substance abuse consequences among other matters

3.7 - GUs' level of Internet use

All GUs answered this question.

69 are searching on the Internet 5 times a day or more > 47 %

59 are searching on the Internet between 1 to 3 times a day > 40 %

16 are searching on the Internet between 1 to 3 times a week > 11 %

3 are searching on the Internet between 1 to 3 times a month > 2 %

Remark 1: in the open comment field, 7 GUs said that they were fulltime connected to Internet. And one said « I dont go often, as I loose time to find what I want.»

Remark 2: Among those who are connecting 5 times/day or more are firstly the info-specialists (20,4 %), librarians (17,5 %), policy-makers (15,3 %) and researchers (15 %). Then come the students and preventors (13,6 %) and the practitioners/therapists (10 %).

3.8 - GUs' way of Internet search

137 GUs answered this question: 93%

112 (67 %) use one or more search engine(s)

47 (34 %) do browse from well known institutions website links

32 (22 %) use at the same time a search engine AND browse from website links

24 (16 %) search within known databases (Medline, Social, drug specialised...)

21 (14 %) use their personal collection of URLs

10 (7 %) use a search engine AND browse from links AND use their own URL collection

6 (4 %) use link directories

4 (2 %) aleatory browsing

1 crosses the results of search and browsing

1 uses any kind of methods

Search engines used:

76 use Google

27: Yahoo

17: Altavista

7: Copernic

4: Hotbot/Lycos, 4 MSN, 4 Fireball.de

3: Ask Jeeves

2: NorthernLight, 2 Netscape search facilities

1: Alltheweb, 1 infoseek, 1 Sherlock (Mac), 1 GlobalNet, 1 Doras (Irish web directory), 1 Swetsnet, 1 Makupalat.fi, 1 Dogpile, 1 ZPID

Websites or databases that are searched in, or whose links are used for browsing, by number of quotes:

21: Medline/PubMed

9: EMCDDA

8: Toxibase bibliographic database

7: MILDT / OFDT, and various non-defined Gov. websites (e.g.: Senates, local GOV, etc.),

4: ETOH, DrugScope, SOSIG

3: Archido, NIDA, Erowid, PsyInfo, Infoset

2: EBSCO, EmBase, Legifrance, Libris, PrevLine, Science Direct, SAMHSA, UNDCP

1: Alcohol Concern, ADIN, AdLibris, ANIT, Aranzadi, BIBSYS, Biomed, BISDRO, Calim, Cinahl, CISMEF, Cochrane, Datastar, Dgsuchtmedizin.de, DrugInfo, FINT, Elisad, GREAT, HAPI, HON, INDID, INIST, IREB, Irefrea, Jade, Legis, Lindesmith, Medisite, Medivista, MedKnowledge, Mednet.ch, MIMAS, Nadir, OMNI, PNSD, Prevnet, PsyIndex, Psychlit, Seznam, STAKES, World (or Web) of Science.

Remark 1: Main ways of searching are: the use of a search engine (2/3 of the GUS), and browsing from well known institutions links (1/3 of the GUs).

Remark 2: Google is the search engine used by a majority of GUs, far before the other search engines. When you know that today, a simple search with Google on «GHB» is giving 272000 answers, one can imagine that the Gateway will really be useful to those using search engines, and that the Gateway will change many current ways of searching on the Internet.

Remark 3: Medical databases are mostly searched, and Medline is in front.

3.8 - GUs' expectations and needs

Expectations and needs were analysed from three different questions (n°5, 6 and 7) as expectations were expressed in the needs field and vice-versa. 142 questionnaires on a total of 147 are expressing either expectations or needs, or both.

This led to a collection of 1272 identified items that have been classified:

267 items are expressing 7 main types of expectations

169 items are expressing specific types of searches (per name of org., per country...)

420 items are expressing searches on a thematic subject

416 items are expressing searches on a type of documents

3.8.1. - Seven main types of expectations were expressed in 114 questionnaires. Our Gateway should be or provide:

a tool for easy access to information (54 = 37% of the GUs)

a quick access to URLs (53 = 37% of the GUs)

an enlargement of their resources (42 = 29% of the GUs)

only access to selected / validated sites (26 = 18% of the GUs)

a tool for being kept up-to-date (21 = 14% of the GUs)

a save of time in searching (18 = 12% of the GUs)

a better knowledge of website contents (10 = 0,7% of the GUs)

13 more rare expectations were expressed:

the wish of interactive sections in the Gateway: 9

forum / chats / exchanges between GUs: 5

alerting service / mailing list: 4

information on birth and death of websites: 1

rating of the websites quality: 1

find a collection of fulltexts contained in (and not through) the gateway: 1

Remark: the search for a thematic subject is the highest expectation/need (420), nearly followed with the need of search per type of document (416). A Gateway, offering by essence a thematic browsing will respond to this primary need. A search per type of document should be offered in complement.

Expectations were also analysed per type of GUs.

The next table is showing for example that:

preventors, therapists, policy-makers and researchers are mainly searching on a theme,

students first, then preventors, librarians and policy-makers expect an easy access tool,

librarians, students and therapists expect a quick access to specific URLs,

preventors, students and info-specialists expect an enlargement of their resources,

students, info-specialists and librarians expect links to validated websites,

policy-makers, students, researchers and preventors expect being kept up-dated,

policy-makers, then researchers, librarians, preventors, students expect a gain of time,

policy-makers and students expect a better knowledge of the websites content.

3.8.2. - GUs expressed a need for the following specific types of search:

169 items are expressing special types of searches in 84 questionnaires.

search on name of an organisation: 87 were expressed in 53 questionnaires (37%)

search per country: 36 were expressed in 29 questionnaires (20%)

search per type of organisation: 23 were expressed in 20 questionnaires (14%)

search on the name of a journal: 11 were expressed in 10 questionnaires (7%)

search on the name of a person: 7 were expressed in 7 questionnaires (5%)

search per language: 5 were expressed in 4 questionnaires (3%)

Remark: the Gateway will anyway provide answers to this type of searches. The question is if the design should provide a specific and direct facility to these.

3.8.3. - What type of documents GUs are looking for?

416 items in 117 questionnaires are expressing searches on a type of documents.

The keyword that was mostly used in GUs' searches is «research» (quoted 84 times)

- new, recent, current, latest, on going researches: 36

- research: 27

- research outcomes/synthesis: 12

- comparative/international studies: 9

Other types of documents that are searched, by order of importance:

New, recent publications/books: quoted 30 times

Fulltexts: 28

Statistics: 23

Reports. - Current news: 21 (each)

Events agenda. - Professional contacts: 14

Prevention programmes: 13

Evaluation: 12 (including evaluation tools: 5)

Addresses: 12

Databases/directories/catalogues. - Legal texts: 9

Prevention tools. - Books/Bibliography: 8

Trends. - Journal articles. - Web link: 7

Grey literature. - ITC. - Press clippings: 6

Financing. - Good practices. - Images. - Facts/info sheets. - Instruments: 5

Methodologies. - Portals. - Audiovisuals: 4

Guidelines. - Online newsletters: 3

Dictionaries/glossaries. - Softwares: 2

Campaigns. - References: 1

 

3.8.4. - What are the GUs themes of search?

144 questionnaires are answering the search question (3 no answers)

Among these, 134 questionnaires are mentioning searches on themes (10 being only answering by type of document search without a theme)

420 thematic items were found, most of them indicating cross-searches that have been detailed into a list of 217 keywords (see appendix 2) .

I classified the keywords in 11 sections:

- 100 GUs search on substances related themes (75 % of the answerers to this question)

- 55 GUs search on treatment related themes (41 %)

- 55 GUs search on themes related to a specific population (41 %)

- 52 GUs search on prevention related themes (39 %)

- 49 GUs search on consequences/effects related themes (37 %)

- 44 GUs search on behaviours related themes (including addiction without substance) (33 %)

- 37 GUs search on themes related to settings (28 %)

- 36 GUs search on supply reduction related themes (27 %)

- 28 GUs search on policy related themes (21 %)

- 21 GUs search on economics related themes (16 %)

- 16 GUs search on culture/history related themes (12 %)

Remark: my classification among the above sections can be considered aleatory. I was not sure whether I should classify « legislation », « justice and drug courts », « law regulation » and « law enforcement » in the « supply reduction » section or in the « policy » section. Here these themes are included in the « supply reduction » section.

Number of keywords used by GUs and classifies by subject section:

substances = 272

behaviours = 159

consequences/effects = 97

treatment = 95

populations = 91

prevention = 79

supply reduction = 59

settings = 57

policy = 40

economics = 33

culture/history = 23

Remark: The total number of keywords given by GUs is of 1005, generating a list of 217 different words.

3.8.5. - What about the GUs' search for interactivity?

Curiously, at a time where there is a big development of interactive websites/sections of sites, there arent many searches on interactivity: 19 only (13%):

Interactive prevention sites: 6

Alerting service / mailing list: 3

Online test: 4

Chats/forums/newsgroup: 3

Online help service: 1

Online training: 1

Online ordering: 1

Remark: This can be partly due to the fact that our GUs panel isnt for the moment including general public and youth (to whom most of the interactive prevention sites are targeted). Here, the GUs (6 of them) who where looking for an interactive site, were mainly the owners of them! And no GUs searched for online treatment modules: we also dont have yet (well not many!) drugs users among our GUs!

3.8.6. - GUs searches that will not be fulfilled in this first step of the project

a) Coverage

Our project is a European project: there is a need to promote European websites, research, documents and information of all those provided on the net.

Although this was announced, GUs cant, at the time of the Internet, limit their search to only European information:

44 GUs (30%) mentioned searches outside Europe

38 GUs (26%) mentioned out-of-Europe sites to be included in the Gateway

Remark: Although we have the word «International» among our «coverage» indexation keywords, our aim in, the first instance. is not to cover websites that originated outside Europe. However, this can be a further step if enough money and other resources are available in the future.

b) Interactive sections

The wish of some GUs for interactive sections such as chats, forum, mailing-list is a good idea. This is not planned in this first step of the project. Meanwhile, like the enlargement of the coverage, this could be a further step if enough financing available for this.

c) Wishes expressing a misunderstanding of what the Gateway will be

Some rare GUs (less then 2 %) understood that the Gateway would consist of a collection of fulltext documents (recent research, etc.). Being in fact a collection of described and indexed websites it will of course lead to fulltext documents, and recent research, or news, or books, as far as the indexed websites are presenting those.

4. The use of the survey results

The Gateway users' input through this survey was bigger than we expected.

The first evident one is the list of websites to be evaluated they provides us.

A more deeper input, in terms of thematic search sections and in terms of keywords they use for search was considered during a technical meeting (May 14-16, University Bremen), meeting getting together Susanna Prepeliczay, co-ordinator of the project, Bernd Titze, our database technician, Marianne van der Heijden, our webmaster, and my self as webdesigner, but here mainly as the person who conducted this survey.

4.1. - A valuable collection of websites to be considered

The very first evident input is the collection of websites they suggested to be evaluated and included in the Gateway.

401 sites were mentioned by GUs in 85 questionnaires (59 %), building a list of 235 single websites. The appendix 3 is giving this list, the websites being classified per country, and including the number of times each website was quoted.

This list was sent, end of April, to all the Gateway partners, so they could check and compare it with their own list of websites planned to be analysed within their coverage region. Some from the out-of-Europe regions will not be considered.

4.2. - GUs input in terms of thematic sections to be present in the Gateway

Classifying the keywords used by the GUs in this survey, it was very quickly observed that some of these were belonging to sections that we didn't think previously when building our indexation form.

These thematic sections are:

the « audiences/populations » subject of research or target groups of kinds of information

the« settings » subject of research (e.g. prisons, schools...) or of places for actions

the « supply reduction » subjects.

It was decided to add the two first suggested sections in our indexation form. The « supply reduction » one, being partly included into the « economics » section for terms related to trafficking and partly to the « policy » for terms related to laws and legislation.

4.2. - GUs input in terms of keywords to be used in indexing the websites

some synonym keywords of our indexation form were changed into those more used by the GUs

some GUs keywords, that were absent in our indexation form, were added, especially some keywords specific to the alcohol and tobacco fields. The number of time a keyword was quoted was taking into account in this step.

4.2. - GUs input in terms of designing the Gateway search interface

It was also decided to take into account the items mostly searched by the GUs and provide for these a quick access facility in our Gateway search interface. The existence of many synonyms gave us the idea of an internal glossary that will allow our search engine to give answers on synonyms used by GUs.

5. Conclusion

This consultation survey was useful at many levels.

promotion of the project

better knowledge of the future gateways users

better knowledge of their expectations concerning the gateway and needs in Internet search

consequent input of the future gateway users into the project

a panel of professionals who agreed to participate in the two next consultations (test of prototype and final evaluation)

5.1. Promotion of the project

This survey reached 400 professionals for sure and about almost the same number by snow- ball system. So a good amount of targeted professionals involved in the addiction fields are now informed about the project. Among other promotion means (conferences, published news, articles) a consultation is one of the best as it involves the input of your future users.

5.2. A better knowledge of our future Gateway users

Although we had an idea of the users we wanted to target, we have now a more precise knowledge of who they are: mainly researchers, librarians, policy-makers, information specialists, practitioners/therapists, prevention officers, students. Most of them have multi-disciplinary functions, e.g. being as well prevention officers and policy-makers, students and researchers, etc.

5.2. A better knowledge of their expectations and needs

The analysis of their answers give us a good overview of their expectations and will allow us to build a tool that will correspond as much as possible to their needs.

5.2. Future Gateway users participation to the project

147 participated for now in the project by giving their ideas and input at many levels: sites to be evaluated, themes they are searching on, keywords they are using for Internet search. Their input did allows us to refine our search tools and will allow us to build a tool really answering closely to their needs.

5.2. Future Gateway users agreed to continue their participation

This consultation also allowed us to create a good panel of professionals expressing their desire to continue their participation: 94 Gateway users agreed to participate to the test of a prototype and to the final evaluation.

u

To conclude, I would say that not only the number of professionals that answered our questionnaire, but also the completeness of their answers, their high score on the usefulness of the project, the number of them wanting to continue to contribute are good indicators on the evident need of an Internet Gateway in Europe.

Many GUs did encourage us by comments: «I wish you a great courage for this enormous but necessary work...» ; «Good luck! I havent yet find a real valuable site in France on street drugs and diverted medication! » ; «There are times this gateway may be invaluable. » ; «Very good initiative. Keep courage! Happy to contribute! Bravo! ». These comments are comforting us on the usefulness of this project in Europe.

back to table of contents

First gateway users consultation report

List of appendixes

Appendix 1: The questionnaire, in English, French and German

Appendix 2: Details on the keywords analysis

Appendix 3: List of websites given by the future Gateway Users

ELISAD European Internet Gateway on Alcohol and other Drugs / Interim Research Report Oct. 2002 / back to table of contents