Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA最新文献

Background: Over a decade ago, the Hill report argued that a shift in vision was required to change the perception of National Health Service (NHS) Library and Knowledge Services (LKS) in England from "book repositories" to essential services that underpin clinical decision-making by patients, carers, and health care professionals. Health Education England's Knowledge for Healthcare: A Development Framework for Library and Knowledge Services in England 2015-2020 advocates embedding librarians within clinical and management teams in order to provide access to high-quality evidence at the point of need.

Case presentation: In April 2019, Royal Papworth Hospital relocated twelve miles from its historic village location in Papworth Everard to its new state-of-the-art hospital on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The design for this new hospital did not accommodate a traditional library space and therefore necessitated a transformation of the LKS. The organization opted to embed the LKS staff into the clinical setting and relegate 80% of the print collection to off-site storage. This project and its associated steps are presented as an example of health care library transformation.

Conclusion: Embedding the LKS team in the clinical setting, engaging in proactive outreach activity, and improving our marketing led to a 44% increase in literature searches requested compared to the same eleven-month period in the previous year. A 40% decrease in our print book loans indicates additional barriers to using a click-and-collect service and the need for greater investment in our e-book provision. However, early outcomes for our best-fit service transformation are positive. Having an open, dual mindset has enabled the service to embrace change and maximize emerging opportunities to collaborate with clinical staff on new projects.

Objective: An innovative funding scheme for health care librarians to attend an intensive short course in teaching evidence-based practice was established in the West of England in 2016. This evaluation aims to understand the value of the scheme and the impact of the training opportunity for the librarians, establish an evidence base for continuing with the funding scheme, and inform the development of plans to build additional capacity among health care librarians to provide critical appraisal training.

Methods: Seven librarians working in health care system settings were funded by the scheme between 2016 and 2018. Post-course feedback forms gathered initial views on course content and delivery, which informed the development of questions for the qualitative phase of the evaluation. All seven librarians participated in group discussions and individual interviews.

Results: The course boosted confidence, provided valuable new skills, and positively impacted careers of the librarians through access to new opportunities. It inspired the development of new approaches to critical appraisal training. An important need was identified among the librarians for more education in teaching. Librarians funded by the scheme have successfully cascaded the training to their colleagues.

Conclusion: This evaluation supports the continuation of the funding scheme to further build capacity among health care librarians to teach evidence-based practice. It suggests additional investment in this type of specialist training, as well as in education in teaching skills, would be beneficial for health care librarians. Evidence from this evaluation is informing new plans to support these professionals with the vital service they provide, which contributes to the evidence-based culture of their organizations and to patient outcomes.

Background: Over four years of hosting library data workshops, we conducted post-workshop evaluation of attendees' satisfaction with the workshops but not longer-term follow-up. To best allocate library resources and most effectively serve the needs of our users, we sought to determine whether our data workshops were impactful and useful to our community. This paper describes a pilot project to evaluate the impact of data workshops at our academic health sciences library.

Case presentation: We surveyed individuals who signed up for data workshops between 2016 and 2019. Surveys included open-ended and multiple-choice questions, with the goal of having participants describe their motivations for taking the workshop(s) and how they ultimately used what they learned. An analysis of responses using the Applied Thematic Analysis model indicated that the workshops had an impact on the respondents, although the strength of our conclusions is limited by a relatively low response rate.

Conclusions: Survey results indicated that our workshops impacted how researchers at our medical center collect and analyze data, supporting the conclusion that we should concentrate our educational efforts on providing skills-based workshops. The low response rate and time-consuming nature of the analysis point toward several improvements for future evaluation efforts, including better tracking of workshop attendees, a shorter survey with fewer open-ended questions, and survey implementation within one year of the workshop date.

To help ensure that authors of articles published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) receive appropriate recognition for their contributions and to make individual author roles more transparent to readers, JMLA articles will begin including Author Contribution statements using the Contributor Role Taxonomy.

Objective: We analyzed the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) to understand leading research institutions, collaborations among institutions, major publication venues, key research concepts, and topics covered by pandemic-related research.

Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of authors' institutions and relationships, automatic content extraction of key words and phrases from titles and abstracts, and topic modeling and evolution. Data visualization techniques were applied to present the results of the analysis.

Results: We found that leading research institutions on COVID-19 included the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the US National Institutes of Health, and the University of California. Research studies mostly involved collaboration among different institutions at national and international levels. In addition to bioRxiv, major publication venues included journals such as The BMJ, PLOS One, Journal of Virology, and The Lancet. Key research concepts included the coronavirus, acute respiratory impairments, health care, and social distancing. The ten most popular topics were identified through topic modeling and included human metapneumovirus and livestock, clinical outcomes of severe patients, and risk factors for higher mortality rate.

Conclusion: Data analytics is a powerful approach for quickly processing and understanding large-scale datasets like CORD-19. This approach could help medical librarians, researchers, and the public understand important characteristics of COVID-19 research and could be applied to the analysis of other large datasets.

Objective: This study aims to identify the core journals cited in the health care management literature and to determine their coverage in the foremost bibliographic databases used by the discipline.

Methods: Using the methodology outlined by the Medical Library Association's Nursing and Allied Health Resource Section (NAHRS) protocol for "Mapping the Literature of Nursing and Allied Health Professions," this study updates an earlier study published in 2007. Cited references from articles published in a three-year range (2016-2018) were collected from five health care management journals. Using Bradford's Law of Scattering, cited journal titles were tabulated and ranked according to the number of times cited. Eleven databases were used to determine coverage of the most highly cited journal titles for all source journals, as well as for a subset of practitioner-oriented journals.

Results: The most highly cited sources were journals, followed by government documents, Internet resources, books, and miscellaneous resources. The databases with the most complete coverage of Zone 1 and 2 were Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and PubMed, while the worst performing databases were Health Business Elite, ABI/Inform, and Business Source Complete.

Conclusions: The literature of health care management has expanded rapidly in the last decade, with cumulative citations increasing by 76.6% and the number of cited journal titles increasing by nearly 70% since the original study. Coverage of the core journals in popular databases remains high, although specialized health care management and business databases did not perform as well as general or biomedical databases.