Dataset Information

Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: an exploratory study.

ABSTRACT: Objective:The aim of this exploratory study was to assess personal, work-related, and client-related burnout among information professionals who support systematic review (SR) work. Methods:The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, a validated tool for assessing burnout, was administered to information professionals who support SR work. A broad range of health sciences or medical librarians and information professionals were targeted via professional email discussion lists and news outlets. Questionnaire responses were captured electronically using Qualtrics Survey Software and quantitatively analyzed. Results:Respondents experienced an average personal burnout score of 48.6, work-related score of 46.4, and client-related score of 32.5 out of 100. Respondents who reported spending >80% of their job duties on SR work had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported spending <10% of their job duties on SR work (average, 31.5 versus 50.9, respectively). Also, respondents who reported using an SR support tool had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported sometimes using a tool (average, 43.7 versus 54.7, respectively). Conclusion:The results suggest that information professionals who dedicate more time to SR work or who consistently use an SR support tool experience less burnout. This study provides groundwork for further investigation with the aim of developing approaches to prevent or combat SR-related burnout among information professionals.

SUBMITTER: Demetres MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6919998 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: an exploratory study.

Demetres Michelle R MR Wright Drew N DN DeRosa Antonio P AP

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20200101 1

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this exploratory study was to assess personal, work-related, and client-related burnout among information professionals who support systematic review (SR) work.<h4>Methods</h4>The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, a validated tool for assessing burnout, was administered to information professionals who support SR work. A broad range of health sciences or medical librarians and information professionals were targeted via professional email discussion lists and news outlet ...[more]

PMID: 31897056

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe early career health sciences information professionals' self-reported attainment of the Medical Library Association (MLA) Competencies for Lifelong Learning and Professional Success and to investigate the various methods by which participants developed these competencies.MethodsA SurveyMonkey survey was designed to ascertain participants' demographic information and their competency attainment. "Early career" health information professionals were defined as those with less than five years of professional experience. Participants were asked to rate each of the seven competencies on a five-point Likert scale regarding their level of agreement with the statement, "I have demonstrated this competency." Participants who responded positively were then asked to indicate how they acquired the competency on a multiple-choice, multiple-answer list. Free-text fields were provided for general comments and for participants to elaborate on their answers. The survey was distributed through the MLA email discussion list and other related email discussion lists. Participation was anonymous.ResultsOne hundred eighty-seven responses were received. Out of those 187 respondents, 95 completed the entire survey. The majority of early career health sciences information professionals agreed that they had attained all 7 competencies. Of the various methods used to develop competencies, the most selected method was formal library and information studies education. Participants were least likely to report attaining competencies via mentoring, volunteering, or internships. Participants reported the highest level of confidence in having attained the "Health Sciences Information Services" competency, and the lowest level of confidence in having attained the "Research, Analysis, and Interpretation" competency.ConclusionsThese results contribute to the ongoing discussions regarding proposed changes to the MLA competencies. The results may also inform the development of educational and professional development opportunities for prospective or early career health information professionals.

Project description:ObjectiveWhile many librarians have been asked to participate in systematic reviews with researchers, often these researchers are not familiar with the systematic review process or the appropriate role for librarians. The purpose of this study was to identify the challenges and barriers that librarians face when collaborating on systematic reviews. To take a wider view of the whole process of collaborating on systematic reviews, the authors deliberately focused on interpersonal and methodological issues other than searching itself.MethodsTo characterize the biggest challenges that librarians face while collaborating on systematic review projects, we used a web-based survey. The thirteen-item survey included seventeen challenges grouped into two categories: methodological and interpersonal. Participants were required to indicate the frequency and difficulty of the challenges listed. Open-ended questions allowed survey participants to describe challenges not listed in the survey and to describe strategies used to overcome challenges.ResultsOf the 17 challenges listed in the survey, 8 were reported as common by over 40% of respondents. These included methodological issues around having too broad or narrow research questions, lacking eligibility criteria, having unclear research questions, and not following established methods. The remaining challenges were interpersonal, including issues around student-led projects and the size of the research team. Of the top 8 most frequent challenges, 5 were also ranked as most difficult to handle. Open-ended responses underscored many of the challenges included in the survey and revealed several additional challenges.ConclusionsThese results suggest that the most frequent and challenging issues relate to development of the research question and general communication with team members. Clear protocols for collaboration on systematic reviews, as well as a culture of mentorship, can help librarians prevent and address these challenges.

Dataset Information

Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: an exploratory study.

Publications

Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: an exploratory study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets