Dataset Information

The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Objective:Institutional repositories are platforms for presenting and publicizing scholarly output that might not be suitable to publish in a peer-reviewed journal or that must meet open access requirements. However, there are many challenges associated with their launch and up-keep. The objective of this systematic review was to define the impacts of institutional repositories (IRs) on an academic institution, thus justifying their implementation and/or maintenance. Methods:A comprehensive literature search was performed in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (Wiley), ERIC (ProQuest), Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus (Elsevier), and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (EBSCO). A total of 6,593 citations were screened against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results:Thirteen included studies were divided into 3 areas of impact: citation count, exposure or presence, and administrative impact. Those focusing on citation count (n=5) and exposure or presence (n=7) demonstrated positive impacts of IRs on institutions and researchers. One study focusing on administrative benefit demonstrated the utility of IRs in automated population of ORCID profiles. Conclusion:Based on the available literature, IRs appear to have a positive impact on citation count, exposure or presence, and administrative burden. To draw stronger conclusions, more and higher-quality studies are needed.

SUBMITTER: Demetres MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7069834 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review.

Demetres Michelle R MR Delgado Diana D Wright Drew N DN

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20200401 2

<h4>Objective</h4>Institutional repositories are platforms for presenting and publicizing scholarly output that might not be suitable to publish in a peer-reviewed journal or that must meet open access requirements. However, there are many challenges associated with their launch and up-keep. The objective of this systematic review was to define the impacts of institutional repositories (IRs) on an academic institution, thus justifying their implementation and/or maintenance.<h4>Methods</h4>A com ...[more]

PMID: 32256229

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesMulti-institutional research increases the generalizability of research findings. However, little is known about characteristics of collaborations across institutions in health sciences education research. Using a systematic review process, the authors describe characteristics of published, peer-reviewed multi-institutional health sciences education research to inform educators who are considering such projects.MethodsTwo medical librarians searched MEDLINE, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for English-language studies published between 2004 and 2013 using keyword terms related to multi-institutional systems and health sciences education. Teams of two authors reviewed each study and resolved coding discrepancies through consensus. Collected data points included funding, research network involvement, author characteristics, learner characteristics, and research methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsOne hundred eighteen of 310 articles met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (53%) studies received external and/or internal financial support (87% listed external funding, 37% listed internal funding). Forty-five funded studies involved graduate medical education programs. Twenty (17%) studies involved a research or education network. Eighty-five (89%) publications listed an author with a master's degree or doctoral degree. Ninety-two (78%) studies were descriptive, whereas 26 studies (22%) were experimental. The reported study outcomes were changes in student attitude (38%; n=44), knowledge (26%; n=31), or skill assessment (23%; n=27), as well as patient outcomes (9%; n=11).ConclusionsMulti-institutional descriptive studies reporting knowledge or attitude outcomes are highly published. Our findings indicate that funding resources are not essential to successfully undertake multi-institutional projects. Funded studies were more likely to originate from graduate medical or nursing programs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe, qualitatively and quantitatively, the impact of a review by multiple institutional review boards (IRBs) on the conduct of a multisite observational health services research study. DATA SOURCE AND SETTING: Primary data collection during 2002, 2003, and 2004 at 43 United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics.DesignExplanatory sequential mixed methods design incorporating qualitative and quantitative elements in sequence. DATA COLLECTION AND ABSTRACTION METHODS: Field notes and documents collected by research staff during a multisite observational health services research study were used in thematic analysis. Themes were quantified descriptively and merged with timeline data.Principal findingsApproximately 4,680 hours of staff time over a 19-month period were devoted solely to the IRB process. Four categories of phenomena impacting research were observed: (1) Recruitment, retention, and communication issues with local site principal investigators (PIs). Local PIs had no real role but were required by IRBs. Twenty-one percent of sites experienced turnover in local PIs, and local PI issues added significant delay to most sites. (2) Wide variation in standards applied to review and approval of IRB applications. The study was designed to be qualified under U.S. government regulations for expedited review. One site exempted it from review (although it did not qualify for exemption), 10 granted expedited review, 31 required full review, and one rejected it as being too risky to be permitted. Twenty-three required inapplicable sections in the consent form and five required HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) consent from physicians although no health information was asked of them. Twelve sites requested, and two insisted upon, provisions that directly increased the risk to participants. (3) Multiple returns for revision of IRB applications, consent documents, and ancillary forms. Seventy-six percent of sites required at least one resubmission, and 15 percent of sites required three or more (up to six) resubmissions. Only 12 percent of sites required any procedural or substantive revision; most resubmissions were editorial changes to the wording of the consent document. (4) Process failures (long turnaround times, lost paperwork, difficulty in obtaining necessary forms, unavailability of key personnel at IRBs). The process required from 52 to 798 (median 286) days to obtain approval at each site.ConclusionsSeveral features of the IRB system as currently configured impose costly burdens of administrative activity and delay on observational health services research studies, and paradoxically decrease protection of human subjects. Central review with local opt-out, cooperative review, or a system of peer review could reduce costs and improve protection of human subjects.

Project description:BackgroundGeographic access to obstetric care facilities has a significant influence on women's uptake of institutional delivery care. However, this effect was not consistent across studies. Some studies reported that geographic access to obstetric care facilities had no influence on the use of facility delivery. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized and pooled the influence of geographic access on institutional delivery service uptake in low and middle-income countries.MethodsMultiple combinations of search terms were used to search articles from six databases and a hand search of reference lists performed. We included observational studies conducted in low and middle-income countries which reported the influence of geographic access on delivery care use. The pooled effects of geographic access on institutional delivery care use were calculated using a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval.FindingsIn this study a total of 31 studies were included. Among these studies, 15 met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analyses, while the remaining 16 were summarized using qualitative synthesis. Studies included in the analysis where women had to walk 60 minutes or less to access a health facility delivery were significantly heterogeneous. Having access to obstetric care facilities within five kilometres was significantly associated with institutional deliveries (pooled OR = 2.27; 95% CI = 1.82, 2.82). Similarly, a travelling time of 60 minutes or less was significantly associated with higher odds of health facility delivery (pooled OR = 3.30; 95% CI = 1.97, 5.53). Every one-hour and one-kilometre increase in travel time and distance, respectively, was negatively associated with institutional delivery care use.InterpretationGeographic access measured in either physical distance and/or travel time was significantly associated with women's use of facility delivery. The greater the distance and/or travel time to obstetric care facilities, the greater the barrier and the lesser the service uptake.

Dataset Information

The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review.

Publications

The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets