Benchmarking participation of Canadian university health sciences librarians in systematic reviews.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Murphy SA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4404858 | biostudies-other | 2015 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Benchmarking participation of Canadian university health sciences librarians in systematic reviews.
Murphy Susan A SA Boden Catherine C
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20150401 2
This study describes the current state of Canadian university health sciences librarians' knowledge about, training needs for, and barriers to participating in systematic reviews (SRs). A convenience sample of Canadian librarians was surveyed. Over half of the librarians who had participated in SRs acknowledged participating in a traditional librarian role (e.g., search strategy developer); less than half indicated participating in any one nontraditional librarian role (e.g., data extractor). La ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarians have in conducting SRs, to identify barriers to their participation in SRs, and to identify other types of literature reviews that veterinary librarians participate in.MethodsSixty veterinary librarians in universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand were surveyed online about their roles and training in conducting SRs, barriers to participation in SRs, and participation in other types of literature reviews.ResultsVeterinary librarians' highest participation was at an advising level in traditional librarian roles as question formulator, database selector, search strategy developer, and reference manager. Most respondents reported pretty good to extensive training in traditional roles and no or some training in less traditional roles. Sixty percent of respondents received few or no requests to participate in SRs, and only half of respondents had participated in SRs as a review team member. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their libraries had no policies regarding librarian roles and participation in SRs.ConclusionsThe surveyed veterinary librarians participated in SRs to a lesser degree than human health sciences librarians, experienced low demand from veterinary faculty and students to participate in SRs, and participated as review team members at significantly lower rates than human health sciences librarians. The main barriers to participation in SRs were lack of library policies, insufficient training, and lack of time.
| S-EPMC6774563 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5624428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveImpostor phenomenon, also known as impostor syndrome, is the inability to internalize accomplishments while experiencing the fear of being exposed as a fraud. Previous work has examined impostor phenomenon among academic college and research librarians, but health sciences librarians, who are often asked to be experts in medical subject areas with minimal training or education in these areas, have not yet been studied. The aim of this study was to measure impostor phenomenon among health sciences librarians.MethodsA survey of 2,125 eligible Medical Library Association (MLA) members was taken from October to December 2017. The online survey featuring the Harvey Impostor Phenomenon scale, a validated measure of impostor phenomenon, was administered, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine relationships between impostor phenomenon scores and demographic variables.ResultsA total of 703 participants completed the survey (33% response rate), and 14.5% of participants scored ≥42 on the Harvey scale, indicating possible impostor feelings. Gender, race, and library setting showed no associations, but having an educational background in the health sciences was associated with lower impostor scores. Age and years of experience were inversely correlated with impostor phenomenon, with younger and newer librarians demonstrating higher scores.ConclusionsOne out of seven health sciences librarians in this study experienced impostor phenomenon, similar to previous findings for academic librarians. Librarians, managers, and MLA can work to recognize and address this issue by raising awareness, using early prevention methods, and supporting librarians who are younger and/or new to the profession.
| S-EPMC6579590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate knowledge sharing practices among health sciences librarians in African countries.MethodsA cross-sectional survey design was employed. The study population consisted of African health sciences librarians that attended the 16th Biennial Conference of the Association for Health Information and Libraries in Africa on October 14-18, 2019, at the University of Ibadan in Nigeria. Data were collected using a questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsThe types of knowledge most commonly shared by respondents were information on conferences, workshops, and seminars as well as information on new trends and technologies in librarianship. The main avenue of knowledge sharing was face-to-face interaction. Unwillingness to share knowledge and a lack of awareness about current trends and issues were the top identified challenges to knowledge sharing.ConclusionThese survey results establish the existence of a low level of knowledge sharing among health science librarians in Africa and suggest that concerted efforts should be made to overcome barriers to knowledge sharing within and across African countries.
| S-EPMC8608209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study assessed health sciences librarians' attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration using the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS) and gathered information on their involvement with interprofessional activities.MethodsThe authors sent a survey to librarians in the Medical Library Association's (MLA's) Interprofessional Education Special Interest Group and Research Section consisting of the IEPS and questions about their prior and current experiences with interprofessional practice and education (IPE). We compared mean IEPS scores between each MLA group and several other demographic factors to assess differences in attitudes. We also compared librarians' IEPS scores with those of previously published health professional students' IEPS scores and thematically analyzed two open-ended questions.ResultsHealth sciences librarians' scores on the IEPS indicated positive attitudes toward IPE. There were no statistically significant differences between any group. Health sciences librarians' mean IEPS score was similar to the mean score of health professions students from a prior study. The most commonly reported interprofessional activity was teaching or facilitating learning activities for health professions students; fewer served on committees or engaged in non-curricular activities such as grand rounds and book clubs.ConclusionHealth sciences librarians in this study reported positive attitudes toward IPE, in line with the majority of other previously studied health professionals. Years of experience, previous health professional careers, and experience supporting IPE as a librarian had little bearing on the responses to the survey. This suggests that health sciences librarians have positive attitudes toward IPE, regardless of whether they directly support IPE programs or participate in interprofessional activities.
| S-EPMC7441895 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3193361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Health sciences training programs have progressively expanded onto satellite campuses, allowing students the opportunity to learn in communities away from an academic institution's main campus. This expansion has encouraged a new role for librarians to assume, in that a subset of health sciences librarians identify as "satellite librarians" who are permanently located at a distance from the main campus. Due to the unique nature of this role and lack of existing data on the topic, the authors investigated the experiences and perceptions of this unique group of information professionals.An electronic survey was distributed to health sciences librarians via two prominent North American email discussion lists. Questions addressed the librarians' demographics, feelings of social inclusion, technological support, autonomy, professional support, and more.Eighteen surveys were analyzed. While several respondents stated that they had positive working relationships with colleagues, many cited issues with technology, scheduling, and lack of consideration as barriers to feeling socially included at both the parent and local campuses. Social inclusion, policy creation, and collection management issues were subject to their unique situations and their colleagues' perceptions of their roles as satellite librarians.The results from this survey suggest that the role of the academic health sciences librarian at the satellite campus needs to be clearly communicated and defined. This, in turn, will enhance the experience for the librarian and provide better service to the client.
| S-EPMC5764596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Reflective practice is common in nursing and other professions. In the published literature, there is very little about librarians' use of reflective practice and no studies of health librarians' use of reflective practice. This study examined the use of reflective practice among health sciences librarians, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers to use. Methods:This cross-sectional study replicated the 2014 study by Greenall and Sen, using a version of their questionnaire. The research population in this study was health sciences librarians who were members of the MEDLIB-L email discussion list, Medical Library Association (MLA) chapter email discussion lists, and/or MLA section email discussion lists. Results:There were 106 librarians who completed the questionnaire, ranging from those new to the profession through midcareer to longtime librarians. While a high percentage of respondents considered themselves to be reflective practitioners (77%), a larger percentage (87%) reported that they consciously spent time reflecting. Respondents selected a wide variety of benefits of reflective practice, while barriers tended to center on lack of time, knowledge, skills, or experience. Conclusion:The diversity of benefits that respondents selected suggests that reflective practice can play an important positive role in librarians' professional development. Reported barriers to reflective practice suggest that there is a need for educational opportunities to develop skills.
| S-EPMC6919986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians' systematic reviews services. Methods:For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts. Results:We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles. Conclusion:Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations.
| S-EPMC5764593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLibrarians often teach evidence-based practice (EBP) within health sciences curricula. It is not known what teaching methods are most effective.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted searching CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, LISTA, PubMed, Scopus, and others. Searches were completed through December 2014. No limits were applied. Hand searching of Medical Library Association annual meeting abstracts from 2009-2014 was also completed. Studies must be about EBP instruction by a librarian within undergraduate or graduate health sciences curricula and include skills assessment. Studies with no assessment, letters and comments, and veterinary education studies were excluded. Data extraction and critical appraisal were performed to determine the risk of bias of each study.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included for analysis. Studies occurred in the United States (20), Canada (3), the United Kingdom (1), and Italy (1), with 22 in medicine and 5 in allied health. Teaching methods included lecture (20), small group or one-on-one instruction (16), computer lab practice (15), and online learning (6). Assessments were quizzes or tests, pretests and posttests, peer-review, search strategy evaluations, clinical scenario assignments, or a hybrid. Due to large variability across studies, meta-analysis was not conducted.DiscussionFindings were weakly significant for positive change in search performance for most studies. Only one study compared teaching methods, and no one teaching method proved more effective. Future studies could conduct multisite interventions using randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trial study design and standardized assessment tools to measure outcomes.
| S-EPMC4915637 | biostudies-literature