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

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle R. Demetres ◽  
Drew N. Wright ◽  
Antonio P. DeRosa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Information Professionals ◽  
Job Duties

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.

scholarly journals Assisting With Systematic Reviews Can Be Associated With Job-Related Burnout in Information Professionals

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-183
Author(s):  
Kimberly MacKenzie
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Demographic Groups ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Information Professionals

Demetres, M. R., Wright, D. N., & DeRosa, A. P. (2020). Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: An exploratory study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 108(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.665 Abstract Objective – This study explored reports of burnout among librarians who assist with systematic review preparation. Design – Electronic survey (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory). Setting – The survey was advertised via three email discussion lists based in the United States of America. Subjects – The study surveyed 198 librarians and information specialists who support the systematic review process. Of these, 166 completed the personal burnout scale, 159 completed the work burnout scale, and 151 completed the client burnout scale. Methods – The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) is a validated survey that includes three separate scales: personal burnout, work-related burnout, and client-related burnout. The end of the survey addressed demographics, including questions on the respondents’ involvement with systematic reviews. Survey questions use a 0 to 100 rating scale, with 0 indicating Never/To a Low Degree and 100 indicating Always/To a High Degree. The researchers shared the survey to the email discussion lists MEDLIB-L and DOCLINE and advertised it on the Medical Library Association (MLA) News. Survey answers were collected using Qualtrics Survey Software. Once emailed, the survey remained open for one month. Data was coded in Excel and analysis included scoring following the CBI metrics, as well as TukeyHSD and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine differences in demographic groups. Main Results – Reported burnout levels were significantly lower for those who spend more than 80% of their time helping with systematic reviews compared to those who spend less than 10%. The consistent use of a systematic review support tool was also associated with significantly lower burnout levels. Other comparisons were not significant. The average overall response score for personal burnout was 48.6. The average score for work-related burnout was 46.4 and the average score for client-related burnout was 32.5. Reference librarians reported the highest average total burnout scores (47.1), while research librarians had the lowest (37.7). Conclusion – Consistency, either in time spent dedicated to systematic reviews or in the use of a support tool, was associated with lower levels of burnout among librarians and information specialists. The authors suggest that these results could inform ways of improving burnout among those assisting with systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Clare Roth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Educational Services ◽  
Educational Service ◽  
Service Model ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Health Care Settings

To meet the current needs of researchers who perform systematic reviews in health care settings, libraries need to provide high-quality educational services for researchers as part of their systematic review services. A team of librarians with diverse skills is also important for ensuring the growth and sustainability of systematic review services. This commentary describes a new team-based systematic review service model that can transform systematic review services by providing a pathway for librarians to offer a comprehensive educational service for systematic review research in a variety of health sciences library settings.

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 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 An Exploration of Systematic Review Publication Trends in Conservation Biology Journals

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Boice
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conservation Biology ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Publication Trends ◽  
Information Professionals ◽  
Search Quality

Researchers in conservation biology and other non-medical fields are adopting systematic review as a research methodology. Since this methodology requires extensive and well-documented literature searching, it is beneficial for information professionals to understand disciplinary developments in its use. This article investigates trends in systematic review publication in conservation biology journals between 1998 and 2017 and examines the prevalence of search reporting among these systematic reviews. Results show an increase in published systematic reviews over the study period, and the majority of these include a description of the literature search. However, evidence of variable search quality and reporting indicates an important role for librarians in improving literature search strategies and documentation.

scholarly journals Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Ross-White
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Lead Author ◽  
Cultural Norms ◽  
Environmental Scan ◽  
School Of Nursing ◽  
The Past ◽  
To Receive

<p>Introduction</p><p>Systematic reviews pose a growing research methodology in many fields, particularly in the health sciences. Many publishers of systematic reviews require or advocate for librarian involvement in the process, but do not explicitly require the librarian to receive co-authorship. In preparation for developing a formal systematic review service at Queen’s, this environmental scan of systematic reviews was conducted to see whether librarians receive co-authorship or other acknowledgement of their role in systematic reviews.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A search of the Joanna Briggs Database and both Medline and PubMed for systematic reviews with at least one Queen’s-affiliated author was completed. These were classified based on the level of acknowledgement received by the librarian involved in the search into three groups: librarian as co-author, librarian acknowledged and unclear librarian involvement. In instances where the lead author was Queen’s-affiliated, these were also categorized by their primary academic department.</p><p>Results</p><p>Of 231 systematic reviews published with at least one Queen’s-affiliated author since 1999, 32 listed a librarian as co-author. A librarian received acknowledgement in a further 36. The School of Nursing published the most systematic reviews and was most likely to have a librarian as co-author.</p><p>Discussion</p>Librarians at Queen’s are actively involved in systematic reviews and co-authorship is a means of valuing our contribution. Librarians appear to be more likely to achieve co-authorship when they have advocated for this role in the past. Success varies according to the cultural norms of the department.

scholarly journals For Your Enrichment: A Model for Developing and Implementing a Systematic Review Service for Disciplines outside of the Health Sciences

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Riegelman ◽  
Megan Kocher
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
The Social ◽  
Reference Librarians ◽  
Meta Analyses

Support for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the social sciences is an innovative service that makes advanced use of the expert skills of reference librarians and subject specialists. This column provides a deep look into the launch of one systematic review service to provide a model that is adaptable for other academic and special libraries.—Editor

scholarly journals Building the Systematic Review Core in an academic health sciences library

2019 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mellanye J. Lackey ◽  
Heidi Greenberg ◽  
Melissa L. Rethlefsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Executive Director ◽  
Financial Support ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
A Charge ◽  
Procedural Decisions

Background: The authors present efforts to build capacity at our institution for conducting systematic reviews and other forms of evidence synthesis through partnerships and a recharge model. This report describes how we successfully created and launched a for-fee systematic review core at our library.Case Presentation: Throughout 2014 and 2015, library leadership proposed different models for getting institutional and financial support for librarians and staff to better support university researchers conducting systematic reviews. Though well received, initial requests for financial support were not funded. The executive director of the Health Sciences Library released two years’ worth of salary and benefits to fund an evidence synthesis and retrieval librarian position. With this new position, the team formed a charge-back core facility in partnership with our university’s Clinical Translation and Science Award hub. A series of procedural decisions and operational changes helped the group achieve success. Within eighteen months after launching the Systematic Review Core, we reached maximum capacity with more than twenty ongoing reviews.Discussion: Assigning a dollar value to our expertise put us on par with other subject matter experts on campus and actually drove demand. We could act as paid consultants in research projects and shifted the perception of librarians from service providers to research partners. Affiliating with our partners was key to our success and boosted our ability to strengthen our campus’ research infrastructure.

scholarly journals Systematic reviews and evidence synthesis: Resources beyond the health sciences

2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. 248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Kocher ◽  
Amy Riegelman
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
The Social ◽  
The University

Asystematic review is a type of review that “seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence,”1 including results published in grey literature. For decades, systematic reviews have been widely used to synthesize evidence in the health sciences. More recently, other disciplines, such as agriculture and the social sciences, have seen a rise in systematic reviews and related research methodologies. In response to this development, both Cornell University2 and the University of Minnesota Libraries3 have launched systematic review services that explicitly cater to non-health-sciences researchers at their institutions. Because it is recommended that librarians play a part on systematic review teams,4 there is a need for resources and skill development in this area.

scholarly journals The prevalence and risk factors of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among adults in Ethiopia: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsiwaye Gebreyesus ◽  
Kalkidan Nigussie ◽  
Moges Gashaw Getnet ◽  
Balamurugan Janakiraman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract Background: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders imposes a significant and most often underappreciated burden to the individual, nation, healthcare system, and society as a whole. A preliminary literature search suggests that there are at present no reliable estimates on the total prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Ethiopia. Further, in Ethiopia, the cloud of infectious and other non-communicable diseases has led to a lack of attention towards work-related musculoskeletal disorders, empirical under-representation, and possible human capital loss. The objective of this protocol is to present a transparent process for how to review the existing literature on the prevalence rates and determinant factors of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Ethiopia.Method: The proposed methodology is based on Preferred Reporting Systematic Reviews and Protocols (PRISMA-P) statements on the conduct of systematic review and meta-analysis and the MOOSE guidelines for Meta-analysis and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies. The electronic databases MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Science Direct index, SCOPUS, PEDro, PsyINFO, Embase, Ebsco, and Google Scholar will be systematically searched. Besides, the grey literature resources such as databases or websites of dissertations and theses will be searched. The reference list of screened articles will also be hand searched. All observational studies reporting on the prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal pain of any bodily region among adult Ethiopians will be included. Random and quality effects models will be used to calculate pooled prevalence with a 95 % confidence interval. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed. Publication bias and heterogeneity between the included studies will also be assessed and reported.Discussion: The proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will provide valid insight into the pooled prevalence of multi-regional work-related musculoskeletal pain and factors associated. The consensus of data from this review will surely help the policymakers in occupational health and health care sectors in identifying priority areas for interventions in work-related musculoskeletal disorders and will also serve as a baseline for the decision-making processes of musculoskeletal health promotion, work exposure implementations, and prevention programs in workplaces.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document