Hélène Gorring MSc, Pip Divall MA, MSc, Sarah Gardner MA, Anne Gray BSc, PG Dip Lib, Alison McLaren MA, Lindsay Snell MA, Eva Thackeray MA, Adam Tocock MA, Gil Young MSc
{"title":"NHS librarians collaborate to develop a search bank peer reviewing and sharing COVID-19 searches: an evaluation","authors":"Hélène Gorring MSc, Pip Divall MA, MSc, Sarah Gardner MA, Anne Gray BSc, PG Dip Lib, Alison McLaren MA, Lindsay Snell MA, Eva Thackeray MA, Adam Tocock MA, Gil Young MSc","doi":"10.1111/hir.12444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Education England (HEE) mobilised a group of expert searchers from NHS libraries in England to develop a platform for librarians to share peer reviewed search strategies and results on the Knowledge for Healthcare website.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>(1) To document the origins of the COVID-19 search bank, (2) evaluate attitudes of NHS librarians in England towards the search bank and (3) identify lessons learned and consider whether the initiative might be developed further.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Structured interviews with the peer reviewers (<i>n</i> = 10) were conducted, and a questionnaire survey of the NHS library community using the search bank was undertaken.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The interviews confirmed the value of collaboration. Expert searchers worked in pairs to peer review submitted search strategies. The survey (85 responses) indicated that a majority had used the search bank, and approved of the project, with some differences of opinion on functionality and future developments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Collaborative working for the search bank probably saved time for individual NHS librarians. The quality of the searches submitted was variable as were librarians' approaches to presentation and development of search strategies. Peer review benefits from a buddy approach among expert searchers and agreement about feedback provided to contributors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Search strategies are the most useful element of a search bank. Peer review can be challenging and would benefit from a formal structure, but it is professionally rewarding.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9350244/pdf/HIR-9999-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hir.12444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Education England (HEE) mobilised a group of expert searchers from NHS libraries in England to develop a platform for librarians to share peer reviewed search strategies and results on the Knowledge for Healthcare website.
Objectives
(1) To document the origins of the COVID-19 search bank, (2) evaluate attitudes of NHS librarians in England towards the search bank and (3) identify lessons learned and consider whether the initiative might be developed further.
Methods
Structured interviews with the peer reviewers (n = 10) were conducted, and a questionnaire survey of the NHS library community using the search bank was undertaken.
Results
The interviews confirmed the value of collaboration. Expert searchers worked in pairs to peer review submitted search strategies. The survey (85 responses) indicated that a majority had used the search bank, and approved of the project, with some differences of opinion on functionality and future developments.
Discussion
Collaborative working for the search bank probably saved time for individual NHS librarians. The quality of the searches submitted was variable as were librarians' approaches to presentation and development of search strategies. Peer review benefits from a buddy approach among expert searchers and agreement about feedback provided to contributors.
Conclusion
Search strategies are the most useful element of a search bank. Peer review can be challenging and would benefit from a formal structure, but it is professionally rewarding.