Perceptions of digital medical information services applying new technologies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2314Keywords:
digital health information, medical libraries, emerging technologies, information quality, user satisfaction, artificial intelligenceAbstract
Objectives: This study examines users’ behaviors and perceptions when accessing medical information in digital environments and proposes strategic directions for medical libraries seeking to adopt emerging technologies. Specifically, we empirically investigate user expectations regarding digital technologies, differences in perception based on individual characteristics, and key factors influencing satisfaction with information use.
Methods: We conducted a web-based survey from January to February 2024 through the National Center for Medical Science Knowledge, a national institution in South Korea. A total of 580 participants—including healthcare professionals, researchers, educators, and students—completed a questionnaire assessing digital information behavior, preferences for emerging technologies, perceptions of information and service quality, and overall satisfaction. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multiple regression analysis.
Results: Users exhibited a strong tendency to use online-based medical information, reporting particular interest in big data (38.5%) and artificial intelligence (24.9%) technologies. Statistically significant differences in preferences and awareness of digital technologies were observed based on gender, education level, academic major, and occupation. Information reliability (β = .623), service speed, and personalization were identified as key determinants of user satisfaction.
Conclusion: Medical libraries should establish technology-based services that are suitable for the digital information environment and develop customized strategies that accurately reflect user characteristics and demands. This study offers practical insights for designing user-centered digital medical information services.
References
1. Badr J, Motulsky A, Denis JL. Digital health technologies and inequalities: a scoping review of potential impacts and policy recommendations. Health Policy.2024;146:105122. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105122.
2. Catapan S de C, et al. A systematic review of consumers’ and healthcare professionals’ trust in digital healthcare. npj Digit Med.2025;8(1):115. doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01510-8.
3. Sen S. AI and generative AI in health and medical libraries: a scoping review of present use and emerging potential. J EAHIL.2025;21(2):22–26. doi:10.32384/jeahil21675.
4. Yangyuen W, Nuntapichai S, Phetkaew T. A conceptual framework for an information behavior model based on the collaboration perspective between user and system for information retrieval. J Inf Sci Theory Pract. 2020;8(3):30-46.
5. Kraus S, Schiavone F, Pluzhnikova A, Invernizzi AC. Digital transformation in healthcare: analyzing the current state of research. J Bus Res.2021;123:557–567. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.030.
6. Kernisan L. 10 useful types of medical information to bring to a new doctor. Better Health While Aging[Internet]. 2025 Jul [cited 2025 Jun 5]. Available from: https://betterhealthwhileaging.net/10-types-medical-information-for-new-doctor-or-phr/.
7. Skarpa PE, Garoufallou E. Information seeking behavior and the COVID-19 pandemic: a snapshot of young, middle-aged, and senior individuals in Greece. Int J Med Inform.2021;150:104465. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104465.
8. Swoboda CM, Van Hulle JM, McAlearney AS, Huerta TR. Odds of talking to healthcare providers as the initial source of healthcare information: updated cross-sectional results from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). BMC Fam Pract.2018;19(1):146. doi:10.1186/s12875-018-0805-7.
9. Hibbard JH, Peters E. Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annu Rev Public Health.2003;24:413–433. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.141005.
10. Ekstrand M, Strandberg L. Technological trends in Swedish medical libraries. Health Info Libr J.2023;40(3):326–331. doi:10.1111/hir.12500.
11. Siemensma G, McDonald D. Technology and informatics in Australian health libraries. Health Info Libr J.2023;40(2):218–222. doi:10.1111/hir.12496.
12. Hartmann J, Van Keuren L. Text mining for clinical support. J Med Libr Assoc.2019;107(4):603–606. doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.758.
13. Ronquillo Y, Meyers A, Korvek SJ. Digital health. In: StatPearls[Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 [cited 2025 Jun 5]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470260/. PMID:29262125.
14. Mangion A, Piller N. What is digital health, eHealth, uHealth and Healthcare 4.0? Informatics Health.2025;2(2):137–142. doi:10.1016/j.infoh.2025.06.002.
15. Coumou HC, Meijman FJ. How do primary care physicians seek answers to clinical questions? A literature review. J Med Libr Assoc.2006;94(1):55–60.
16. Haines LL, Light J, O'Malley D, Delwiche FA. Information-seeking behavior of basic science researchers: implications for library services. J Med Libr Assoc.2010;98(1):73–81. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.019.
17. Davies KS. Physicians and their use of information: a survey comparison between the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. J Med Libr Assoc.2011;99(1):88–91. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.99.1.015.
18. Noh Y. Imagining library 4.0: creating a model for future libraries. J Acad Librariansh.2015;41(6):786–797. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.08.020.
19. Adigun GO, Ajani YA, Enakrire RT. The intelligent libraries: innovation for a sustainable knowledge system in the Fifth Industrial Revolution. Libri.2024;74(3):211–223. doi:10.1515/libri-2023-0111.
20. Romano J and Huynh N. OpenAthens odyssey: challenges of implementing federated authentication for a multi-institutional user population. Journal of the Medical Library Association.2021;109(4):648–655.
21. Tytler K. Adoption, usability and perceived clinical value of a UK AI clinical reference platform (iatroX) [Preprint]. arXiv.2025 Sep 25 [cited 2025 Sep]. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.21188.
22. Kumar N, Katiyar HK. Integrating Artificial Intelligence for Enhancing Resources Services in Medical Libraries of North Indian Higher Education Institutions: A Conceptual Framework for Education 4.0. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Library & Technology on “Artificial Intelligence and Humanities in Library and Education 4.0 (AIHLE 2025). Atlantis Press; 2026;5-19. doi: 10.2991/978-94-6239-618-0_2.
23. Bergkvist L, Rossiter JR. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. J Mark Res.2007;44(2):175–184. doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175.
24. Gong T, Yi Y. The effect of service quality on customer satisfaction, loyalty, and happiness in five Asian countries. Psychol Mark.2018;35(6):427–442. doi:10.1002/mar.21096.
25. Portal S, Abratt R, Bendixen M. The role of brand authenticity in developing brand trust. J Strateg Mark.2019;27(8):714–729. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2018.1466828.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jee Yeon Lee, Go eun Lee; JUNGSUN Seo; YEJIN CHOI
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
