The User-Oriented Approach for Facet Extraction in Gynecology and Obstetrics Domain

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Abdolhossein Farajpahlou 1
Farideh Osareh 2
Mostafa Fakhrahmad 3
Leila Dehghani 4
1 Professor, Knowledge and Information Science, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, School of Education and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
2 Professor, Knowledge and Information Science, Department Knowledge and Information Science, School of Education and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Computer Engineering, Department of Engineering and Computer Science, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Knowledge and Information Science, Department of Medical Librarianship, School of Paramedical Sciences, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
10.22122/him.v16i6.3967
Abstract
Introduction: Although the concept of facet analysis has a long background in the classification and information retrieval systems, the use of facet analysis approach in the current information retrieval systems is associated with drawbacks. One of these drawbacks is the lack of proper attention to the user as the main stakeholder of the system. In this study, a method is presented for appropriate facet extraction in the modern information retrieval systems.Methods: In order to perceive the need of users and achieve the facets of gynecology and obstetrics, the contractual content analysis method was employed with a qualitative approach. First, the informational needs of the user group were identified after interviewing 14 specialists in the fields of midwifery and gynecology and obstetrics. Then, the informational needs were classified with the help of specialists in the subject area and a facet was attributed to each stage. An expert group consisting of eight subject-area specialists and eight specialists in knowledge and information science evaluated the efficiency of the facets extracted; this way, the agreement was evaluated based on the total agreement formula.Results: Based on the codes extracted from the interviews related to determining the information needs of stakeholders in the domains of gynecology and obstetrics, 23 facets were identified, 9 of which being identified as proper facets, including age groups, organ, therapeutics, diagnosis, disease, symptoms or finding, risk factor, complication, and prognosis by the experts through receiving a coefficient of agreement above 80%.Conclusion: Facet extraction of the information retrieval systems based on the user-oriented approach converts the facets from general to specialized states. In this case, the facets are different for the users of each specialized domain in the user interface; thus, the specialized user interfaces would be formed.

Keywords

  1. Prieto-Diaz R. Implementing faceted classification for software reuse. Communications of the ACM; 34(5): 88-97.
  2. Spiteri L. Incorporating facets into social tagging applications: An analysis of current trends. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 2010; 48(1): 94-109.
  3. Bates MJ, Maack MN. Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2010. p. 650-9.
  4. British Standards Institution. Universal Decimal Classification. London, UK: British Standards Institution; 2005.
  5. Bliss HE, Mills J, Broughton V, Lang V. Bliss Bibliographic Classification. London, UK: Butterworths; 1977.
  6. Ranganathan SR. Colon classification. London, UK: Madras Library Association; 1933.
  7. Sacco GM, Tzitzikas Y. Dynamic taxonomies and faceted search: Theory, practice, and experience. New York, NY: Springer; 2009.
  8. La Barre K. Facet analysis. Ann Rev Info Sci Tech 2010; 44(1): 243-84.
  9. Foskett DJ. Facet analysis. In: Bates MJ, Maack MN, Editors. Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2010. p 1818-22.
  10. Mohsenzadeh A. Colon classification. In: Horri A, editor. Iran Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. Tehran, Iran: National Library of Iran; 2002. [In Persian].
  11. Wei B, Liu J, Zheng Q, Zhang W, Fu X, Feng B. A survey of faceted search. J Web Eng 2013; 12(1-2): 041-064.
  12. Hjorland B. Facet analysis: The logical approach to knowledge organization. Inform Process Manag 2013; 49(2): 545-57.
  13. Vickery BC. Faceted classification: A guide to construction and use of special schemes. London, UK: Aslib; 1960. p. 145-60.
  14. Farajpahlou A, Osareh F, Fakhrahmad S M, Dehghani L. The development of facet analysis approach in knowledge organization: A 100-year review. Iranian Journal of Information processing and Management 2019; 34(3):1235-64. [In Persian].
  15. Hjorland B. Fundamentals of knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization 2003; 30(2): 87-111.
  16. Mahboob S, Hasanzadeh M. Expressing information need. Journal of National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization 2012; 23(1): 90-111. [In Persian].
  17. Vickery B. Faceted Classification for the Web. Axiomathes 2008; 18(2): 145-60.
  18. Li Y. Relationships among work tasks, search tasks, and interactive information searching behavior [PhD Thesis]. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; 2008.
  19. Li Y, Belkin NJ. A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking. Inform Process Manag 2008; 44(6): 1822-37.
  20. Dakka W. Faceted searching and browsing over large collections of textual and text-annotated objects. New York, NY: Columbia University; 2008.
  21. Niu X, Hemminger B. Analyzing the interaction patterns in a faceted search interface. J Assn Inf Sci Tec 2015; 66(5): 1030-47.
  22. Ramdeen S, Hemminger BM. A tale of two interfaces: How facets affect the library catalog search. J Am Soc Inf Sci 2012; 63(4): 702-15.
  23. Tang MC. Browsing and searching in a faceted information space: A naturalistic study of PubMed users' interaction with a display tool. J Am Soc Inf Sci 2007; 58(13): 1998-2006.
  24. La Barre K. The use of faceted analytico-synethic theory as revealed in the practice and construction of website design [PhD Thesis]. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University; 2006.
  25. Pattuelli MC. A user-centered approach to the development of a history domain ontology: Helping teachers use digital primary sources [PhD Thesis]. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina; 2007.
  26. Sanatjoo A. Improvement of thesaurus design - through a work-task oriented methodology [PhD Thesis]. Aalborg, Denmark: Danmarks Biblioteksskole; 2007.
  27. Sharp ME. Dimensions of drug information [PhD Thesis]. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; 2011.
  28. Gibbs RS, Danforth DN. Danforth's obstetrics and gynecology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008.
  29. Bergsjo P. Melloni's illustrated dictionary of obstetrics and gynecology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80(2): 185.
  30. Randolph J. Free-marginal multirater kappa (multirater κfree): An alternative to fleiss fixed-marginal multirater kappa. Proceedings of the Joensuu Learning and Instruction Symposium; 2005 Oct 14-15; Joensuu, Finland.
  31. Warrens M. Inequalities between multi-rater kappa. Adv Data Analysis and Classification 2010; 4(4): 271-86.
  32. Kuhlthau CC. Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. J Am Soc Inform Sci 1991; 42(5): 361-71.
  33. Bliss HE. The system of the sciences and the organization of knowledge. Philos Sci 1935; 2(1): 86-103.
Health Information Management
Volume 16, Issue 6 - Serial Number 6
Autumn 2020
Pages 285-293