Exploring interprofessional collaboration and attitudes of health sciences librarians

Objective: This 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. Methods: The 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. Results: Health 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. Conclusion: Health 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

Frequency and Effects of Search Strategy Characteristics on Relevant Article Retrieval in Systematic Reviews

Objectives To identify common characteristics of highly effective search strategies for a clinical systematic review topic. Methods Before attending an in-person systematic review workshop, participants asked to draft a reproducible search strategy based on a brief scenario and a research question from a published systematic review related to blood transfusion and radical prostatectomy. Participants are provided with three studies that were included in the published systematic review, but are not given the systematic review itself. The scenario proposes three commonly-requested limits: date range, inclusion of specific outcome, and human studies that participants can choose to apply or not. The submitted strategies are evaluated for reproducibility and effectiveness of retrieval of the 10 studies included in the published systematic review. Strategies were considered ”highly successful” if they returned all 10 included studies. We conducted a thematic analysis on the 14 highly successful strategies to identify common characteristics between them that could guide future searchers. Two studies were disproportionately missed by the other 98 search strategies, and their PubMed records were analyzed to identify what made them particularly challenging to find. We thank the MLA Research Training Institute for its training, support and encouragement to carry out this research. This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (RE-95-17- 0025-17). This study is IRB Exempt under HUM00128315.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/177126/1/Townsend_MLA2019_RTIPoster.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/177126/2/Townsend_MLA2019_RTIPoster.pptxDescription of Townsend_MLA2019_RTIPoster.pdf : Conference poster in pdf formatDescription of Townsend_MLA2019_RTIPoster.pptx : Conference poster in ppt formatSEL

Common Barriers to Replicability and Retrieval in Systematic Review Search Strategies

Objective: To identify the most common elements of systematic review search strategies that affect the replicability of the search and the comprehensiveness of the retrieval. Methods: Participants from three cohorts of a systematic review-focused workshop were asked to draft a replicable search strategy based on a brief scenario and a research question from a published systematic review. Participants were provided with three studies that were included in the published systematic review, but not the original systematic review. The researchers in the scenario asked for three commonly-requested limits: date range, inclusion of specific outcome, and publication type. Participants were free to choose to apply these limits or none. Submitted strategies were evaluated by two blinded reviewers for replicability, use of search limits, retrieval of the three provided studies, and retrieval of all studies included in the published systematic review. This study received exemption status from the Institutional Review Board.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/177127/1/MLA2018_CapstoneAnalysis_Paper.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/177127/2/MLA2018_CapstoneAnalysis_Paper.pptxDescription of MLA2018_CapstoneAnalysis_Paper.pdf : Conference paper in pdf formatDescription of MLA2018_CapstoneAnalysis_Paper.pptx : Conference paper in ppt formatSEL

A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews

Objective: The project identified a set of core competencies for librarians who are involved in systematic reviews. Methods: A team of seven informationists with broad systematic review experience examined existing systematic review standards, conducted a literature search, and used their own expertise to identify core competencies and skills that are necessary to undertake various roles in systematic review projects. Results: The team identified a total of six competencies for librarian involvement in systematic reviews: “Systematic review foundations,” “Process management and communication,” “Research methodology,” “Comprehensive searching,” “Data management,” and “Reporting.” Within each competency are the associated skills and knowledge pieces (indicators). Competence can be measured using an adaptation of Miller’s Pyramid for Clinical Assessment, either through self-assessment or identification of formal assessment instruments. Conclusions: The Systematic Review Competencies Framework provides a standards-based, flexible way for librarians and organizations to identify areas of competence and areas in need of development to build capacity for systematic review integration. The framework can be used to identify or develop appropriate assessment tools and to target skill development opportunities