Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians

Objective: While 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. Methods: To 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. Results: Of 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. Conclusions: These 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

Informationist Support for a Study of the Role of Proteases and Peptides in Cancer Pain

Two supplements were awarded to the New York University Health Sciences Libraries from the National Library of Medicine\u27s informationist grant program. These supplements funded research support in a number of areas, including data management and bioinformatics, two fields that the library had recently begun to explore. As such, the supplements were of particular value to the library as a testing ground for these newer services. This paper will discuss a supplement received in support of a grant from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (PI: Brian Schmidt) on the role of proteases and peptides in cancer pain. A number of barriers were preventing the research team from maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of their work. A critical component of the research was to identify which proteins, from among hundreds identified in collected samples, to include in preclinical testing. This selection involved laborious and prohibitively time-consuming manual searching of the literature on protein function. Additionally, the research team encompassed ten investigators working in two different cities, which led to issues around the sharing and tracking of both data and citations. The supplement outlined three areas in which the informationists would assist the researchers in overcoming these barriers: 1) creating an automated literature searching system for protein function discovery, 2) introducing tools and associated workflows for sharing citations, and 3) introducing tools and workflows for sharing data and specimens

Mental health stigma and barriers to mental health care for first responders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: It is unclear how many first responders experience barriers to care and stigma regarding mental health care, and how this influences their help-seeking. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on barriers to care and mental health stigma in first responders and their empirical relationship with psychosocial and psychiatric variables. Methods: The databases Medline, Embase PsycINFO, CINAHL, PILOTS, LILACS, Sociological Abstracts, SocINDEX, and Social Citation Index were searched to identify relevant studies. A quality assessment and meta-analysis was performed. Results: Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria, from which data from 12 samples were extracted for meta-analyses. All studies measured stigma regarding mental health care and 33.1% of first responders (95% CI 26.7-40.1; 12 individual samples) endorsed stigma items. The systematic review revealed that the most frequently endorsed items were fears regarding confidentiality and negative career impact. Five of 14 studies measured barriers to mental health care and 9.3% of first responders (95% CI 7.0-12.3; 4 individual samples) endorsed barriers to care items. The most frequently endorsed barriers were scheduling concerns and not knowing where to get help. Indications were found for more stigma and barriers in individuals with mental health problems. Conclusions: Stigma and barriers to care are experienced by a significant proportion of firs responders, which can potentially lead to delayed presentation in mental health care and therefore, increased risk of chronicity of post-trauma psychopathology for these groups. The current systematic review draws attention to the paucity of research in this area, particularly in non-Western samples. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserve

National Association of Medical Examiners position paper: Recommendations for the investigation and certification of deaths in people with epilepsy

Sudden unexpected death of an individual with epilepsy can pose a challenge to death investigators, as most deaths are unwitnessed, and the individual is commonly found dead in bed. Anatomic findings (eg, tongue/lip bite) are commonly absent and of varying specificity, thereby limiting the evidence to implicate epilepsy as a cause of or contributor to death. Thus it is likely that death certificates significantly underrepresent the true number of deaths in which epilepsy was a factor. To address this, members of the National Association of Medical Examiners, North American SUDEP Registry, Epilepsy Foundation SUDEP Institute, American Epilepsy Society, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention constituted an expert panel to generate evidence-based recommendations for the practice of death investigation and autopsy, toxicological analysis, interpretation of autopsy and toxicology findings, and death certification to improve the precision of death certificate data available for public health surveillance of epilepsy-related deaths. The recommendations provided in this paper are intended to assist medical examiners, coroners, and death investigators when a sudden unexpected death in a person with epilepsy is encountered