scholarly journals It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Krystal Bullers ◽  
Allison M. Howard ◽  
Ardis Hanson ◽  
William D. Kearns ◽  
John J. Orriola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Strategy Development ◽  
Library Directors ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Task Time ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Time Frames

Introduction: The authors examined the time that medical librarians spent on specific tasks for systematic reviews (SRs): interview process, search strategy development, search strategy translation, documentation, deliverables, search methodology writing, and instruction. We also investigated relationships among the time spent on SR tasks, years of experience, and number of completed SRs to gain a better understanding of the time spent on SR tasks from time, staffing, and project management perspectives.Methods: A confidential survey and study description were sent to medical library directors who were members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries as well as librarians serving members of the Association of American Medical Colleges or American Osteopathic Association.Results: Of the 185 participants, 143 (77%) had worked on an SR within the last 5 years. The number of SRs conducted by participants during their careers ranged from 1 to 500, with a median of 5. The major component of time spent was on search strategy development and translation. Average aggregated time for standard tasks was 26.9 hours, with a median of 18.5 hours. Task time was unrelated to the number of SRs but was positively correlated with years of SR experience.Conclusion: The time required to conduct the librarian’s discrete tasks in an SR varies substantially, and there are no standard time frames. Librarians with more SR experience spent more time on instruction and interviews; time spent on all other tasks varied widely. Librarians also can expect to spend a significant amount of their time on search strategy development, translation, and writing.

scholarly journals Acknowledging Librarians’ Contributions to Systematic Review Searching

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Desmeules ◽  
Sandy Campbell ◽  
Marlene Dorgan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Professional Value

<p>Abstract</p><p> </p><p>Introduction</p><p>Academic health librarians are increasingly involved as members of research teams that conduct systematic reviews. Sometimes librarians are co-authors on the resulting publications, sometimes they are acknowledged, and sometimes they receive no recognition. This study was designed to query librarian supervisors’ understanding of the extent to which Canadian academic health librarians are involved in systematic reviews and the manner in which their work is recognized.</p><p> </p><p>Methods</p><p>A survey asking 21 questions was sent to supervisors of librarians at all 17 academic health sciences libraries in Canada, querying the extent and nature of librarians’ involvement in systematic review research projects and the forms of acknowledgement that they receive.</p><p> </p><p>Results</p><p>Fourteen responses to the survey were received.  Results show strong expectations that librarians are involved, and will be involved, in systematic review research projects.  Results related to the number of reviews undertaken, the amount of time required, the forms of acknowledgement received, and the professional value of systematic review searching varied greatly.</p><p> </p><p>Discussion</p><p>The lack of consensus among academic health librarians’ supervisors regarding most aspects of librarians’ involvement in systematic review projects, and the ways in which this work is and should be acknowledged, points to the need for research on this subject. </p><p> </p>

scholarly journals Academic health sciences libraries and affiliated hospitals: a conversation about licensing electronic resources

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy E. Allison ◽  
Bonita Bryan ◽  
Sandra G. Franklin ◽  
Leslie C. Schick
Keyword(s):  
Health Sciences ◽  
Reading Program ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Library Directors ◽  
Electronic Resources ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Electronic Information Resources

Objective: Libraries in academic health centers may license electronic resources for their affiliated hospitals, as well as for their academic institutions. This study examined the current practices of member libraries of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) that provide affiliated hospitals with access to electronic information resources and described the challenges that the libraries experienced in providing access to the affiliated hospitals.Methods: In September 2016, AAHSL library directors received an email with a link to an online survey.Results: By December 2016, representatives from 60 AAHSL libraries responded. Two-thirds of the responding libraries supplied online information resources to more than 1 hospital, and 75% of these libraries provided the hospitals with access both on site and remotely. Most (69%) libraries licensed the same resource for both the academic institution and the hospitals. Cost, license negotiation, and communication with hospital stakeholders were commonly reported challenges.Conclusion: Academic health sciences libraries with affiliated hospitals continue to grapple with licensing and cost issues. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program.

scholarly journals Gloria Werner, 1940–2021

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Bunting ◽  
J. Michael Homan
Keyword(s):  
Los Angeles ◽  
Graduate Training ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Library Directors ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
Association Of Research Libraries ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
The Us ◽  
Service Award

Gloria Werner, successor to Louise M. Darling at the UCLA Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library, university librarian emerita, and eighteenth editor of the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, died on March 5, 2021, in Los Angeles. Before assuming responsibility in 1990 for one of the largest academic research libraries in the US, she began her library career as a health sciences librarian and spent twenty years at the UCLA Biomedical Library, first as an intern in the NIH/NLM-funded Graduate Training Program in Medical Librarianship in 1962–1963, followed by successive posts in public services and administration, eventually succeeding Darling as biomedical librarian and associate university librarian from 1979 to 1983. Werner’s forty-year career at UCLA, honored with the UCLA University Service Award in 2013, also included appointments as associate university librarian for Technical Services. She was president of the Association of Research Libraries in 1997, served on the boards of many organizations including the Association of Academic Health Sciences Library Directors, and consulted extensively. She retired as university librarian in 2002.

scholarly journals Collection practices for nontraditional online resources among academic health sciences libraries

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Shultz ◽  
Donna R. Berryman
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Online Resources ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Small Organizations ◽  
Development Section ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Actual Use ◽  
Collection Practices

Objective: In recent years, individuals and small organizations have developed new online learning and information resources that are often marketed directly to students. In this study, these nontraditional online resources are defined as apps or other online resources that are not available through large and well-known publishers. The purposes of this study are to determine if academic health sciences libraries are licensing nontraditional online resources and to provide a snapshot of current collections practices in this area.Methods: An online survey was designed and distributed to the email lists of the Collection Development Section of the Medical Library Association and Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries directors. Follow-up phone interviews were conducted with survey participants who volunteered to be contacted.Results: Of the 58 survey respondents, 21 (36.2%) reported that their libraries currently licensed at least 1 nontraditional online resource, and 45 (77.6%) reported receiving requests for these types of resources. The resources listed by respondents included 50 unique titles. Of the 37 (63.8%) respondents whose library did not license nontraditional online resources, major barriers that were noted included a lack of Internet protocol (IP) authentication, licenses that charge per user, and affordable institutional pricing.Conclusions: Evaluation criteria for nontraditional online resources should be developed and refined, and these resources should be examined over time to determine their potential and actual use by students. There is a growing demand for many of these resources among students, but the lack of financial and access models that serve libraries’ needs is an obstacle to institutional licensing.

scholarly journals Borrowing trouble? The impact of a systematic review service on interlibrary loan borrowing in an academic health sciences library

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christy Jarvis ◽  
Joan Marcotte Gregory ◽  
Alison Mortensen-Hayes ◽  
Mary McFarland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Financial Impact ◽  
Interlibrary Loan ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Sample Data ◽  
The Impact

Background: With the mandate to review all available literature in the study’s inclusion parameters, systematic review projects are likely to require full-text access to a significant number of articles that are not available in a library’s collection, thereby necessitating ordering content via interlibrary loan (ILL). The aim of this study is to understand what effect a systematic review service has on the copyright royalty fees accompanying ILL requests at an academic health sciences library.Case Presentation: The library created a custom report using ILLiad data to look specifically at 2018 ILL borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews. This subset of borrowing activity was then analyzed to determine its impact on the library’s copyright royalty expenditures for the year. In 2018, copyright eligible borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews represented only approximately 5% of total filled requests that involved copyright eligible borrowing. However, these systematic review requests directly or indirectly caused approximately 10% of all the Spencer S. Eccles Library copyright royalty expenditures for 2018 requests.Conclusion: Based on the sample data set, the library’s copyright royalty expenditures did increase, but the overall financial impact was modest.

scholarly journals A Comprehensive Systematic Review Protocol of Vaccine Hesitancy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ebenezer Wiafe ◽  
Keiyara Rameshwarnath ◽  
Danielle Tyler ◽  
Simo Mbanjwa ◽  
Nazeefah Bux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Strategy Development ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Vaccine Preventable Diseases ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Abstract Screening

Abstract Background: Vaccine hesitancy has presented to public health, especially the fight against vaccine-preventable diseases, a great challenge in promoting global health. In this coronavirus era, it has become important to examine the concept of vaccine resistance, and effect adequate measures to clamp down on vaccine hesitancy. In an attempt to address vaccine hesitancy, some studies have determined the causes of vaccine hesitancy, reported on the reasons why individuals in resource-constraint countries delay and ultimately reject vaccination interventions, and provided evidence on measures that have been successful at reducing vaccine hesitancy. This comprehensive review protocol, which has been developed as a teaching tool, aims to present a stepwise approach to examining these studies.Methods: The protocol will guide the conduct of the systematic review in an orderly manner and by the allocated number of reviewers: the search strategy development and testing (2); the database search (6); the titles and abstract screening (3); full-text screening (3); the data extraction (7); and the quality assessment of included studies (2). The search strategy has been tested with results in 3 databases from inception to June 30, 2021: MEDLINE via EBSCOhost (n=1364), CINAHL via EBSCOhost (n=91), and Web of Science (n=3472). The included research papers will be reviewed according to the convergent segregated approach as explained in the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) manual. Conclusion: The review protocol, when successfully applied to conduct the systematic review, will provide some guidance to policy-makers as we tackle coronavirus through vaccination intervention. Systematic review registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BVP4S

scholarly journals A NOVEL SEARCH BUILDER TO EXPEDITE SEARCH STRATEGIES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 51-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Biren B. Kamdar ◽  
Pooja A. Shah ◽  
Sruthi Sakamuri ◽  
Bharat S. Kamdar ◽  
Jiwon Oh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Strategy Development ◽  
Microsoft Excel ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Detailed Search ◽  
User Friendly ◽  
Error Testing

Objectives: Developing a search strategy for use in a systematic review is a time-consuming process requiring construction of detailed search strings using complicated syntax, followed by iterative fine-tuning and trial-and-error testing of these strings in online biomedical search engines.Methods: Building upon limitations of existing online-only search builders, a user-friendly computer-based tool was created to expedite search strategy development as part of production of a systematic review.Results: Search Builder 1.0 is a Microsoft Excel®-based tool that automatically assembles search strategy text strings for PubMed (www.pubmed.com) and Embase (www.embase.com), based on a list of user-defined search terms and preferences. With the click of a button, Search Builder 1.0 automatically populates the syntax needed for functional search strings, and copies the string to the clipboard for pasting into Pubmed or Embase. The offline file-based interface of Search Builder 1.0 also allows for searches to be easily shared and saved for future reference.Conclusions: This novel, user-friendly tool can save considerable time and streamline a cumbersome step in the systematic review process.

scholarly journals What to Do When Everyone Wants You to Collaborate: Managing the Demand for Library Support in Systematic Review Searching

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-19
Author(s):  
Sandy Campbell ◽  
Marlene Dorgan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
University Of Alberta ◽  
Library Support ◽  
The University

The demand for systematic review support in academic health sciences libraries is increasing. To manage the demand, the John W. Scott Health Sciences Library at the University of Alberta has created an action plan consisting of eight strategies. The results of implementing these strategies have been varied. Some have shown immediate results, while others are long term strategies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document