Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA最新文献

Three new librarians highlight their varied pathways into health sciences librarianship and offer insight into how they are navigating the challenges and successes of being new to the profession. The authors define a new health sciences librarian as a person who has fewer than five years of experience in health sciences librarianship specifically, having either recently graduated from library school or entered the health sciences from another type of librarianship. Jamia Williams speaks about her journey from new MLS graduate to health science librarian; Kelsa Bartley details her transition from library professional to health science librarian; and Jahala Simuel shares her experiences moving from academic librarian to health science librarian. This commentary provides strategies, tips, and tricks that new health sciences librarians may use to hone their craft and explore opportunities for professional development.

Objective: To conduct a bibliometric analysis of Letters to the Editor published on the Zika virus from 1952-2018.

Methods: A PubMed search was conducted using the terms (Zika OR ZIKV). Results were limited to 1952-2018 and Publication Type = Letter. Results were exported to EndNote, and the full text of each Letter examined. Each Letter was assigned to one of five categories: Reader Response, Author Reply, Observation, Case Report, or Research. Additional study parameters included number of authors, number of references, use of graphics, and funding. Citation reports were generated for each category and the entire dataset, producing lists sorted by Times Cited.

Results: Of 499 Letters, only 15 (3.0%) were published before 2016. In 2016, at the height of the Zika virus epidemic in the Americas, 244 (48.9%) Letters were published, dropping to 145 (29.1%) in 2017 and 95 (19.0%) in 2018. Letters included 149 (29.9%) Reader Responses, 56 (11.2%) Author Replies, 112 (22.4%) Observations, 70 (14.0%) Case Reports, and 112 (22.4%) Research. The Letters were written by 1-35 authors; 369 (74.0%) Letters had 1-5 authors, and 130 (26.0%) had 6 or more. The Letters cited 0-63 references, with an average of 7.0 per Letter. Graphics appeared in 192 (38.5%) Letters, and 77 (15.4%) Letters reported funding. An interesting anomaly was the 104 (20.8%) Letters authored or co-authored by 1 individual.

Conclusion: Letters to the Editor remain an important component of scientific communication and may serve as a valuable source of clinical and research information.

Objective: While data management (DM) is an increasing responsibility of doctorally prepared nurses, little is understood about how DM education and expectations are reflected within student handbooks. The purpose of this study was to assess the inclusion of DM content within doctoral nursing student handbooks.

Methods: A list of 346 doctoral programs was obtained from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). Program websites were searched to locate program handbooks, which were downloaded for analysis. A textual review of 261 handbooks from 215 institutions was conducted to determine whether DM was mentioned and, if so, where the DM content was located. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the presence of DM guidance by type of institution, Carnegie Classification, and the type of doctoral program handbook.

Results: A total of 1,382 codes were identified across data life cycle stages, most commonly in the handbooks' project requirements section. The most frequent mention of DM was in relation to collecting and analyzing data; the least frequent related to publishing and sharing data and preservation. Significant differences in the frequency and location of codes were identified by program type and Carnegie Classification.

Conclusions: Nursing doctoral program handbooks primarily address collecting and analyzing data during student projects. Findings suggest limited education about, and inclusion of, DM life cycle content, especially within DNP programs. Collaboration between nursing faculty and librarians and nursing and library professional organizations is needed to advance the adoption of DM best practices for preparing students in their future roles as clinicians and scholars.

Objective: In regard to locating clinical trials for a systematic review, limited information is available about how librarians locate clinical trials in biomedical databases, including (1) how much information researchers provide librarians to assist with the development of a comprehensive search strategy, (2) which tools librarians turn to for information about study design methodology, and (3) librarians' confidence levels in their knowledge of study design methodology. A survey was developed to explore these aspects of how a medical librarian locates clinical trials when facilitating systematic reviews for researchers.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a 21-question survey was sent to medical librarians via several email listservs during April 2020. Respondents were limited to librarians who make the decisions on search terms for systematic reviews.

Results: Responses (n=120) indicated that librarians were often asked to search for various types of clinical trials. However, there was not a consistent method for creating search strategies that locate diverse types of clinical trials. Multiple methods were used for search strategy development, with hedges being the most popular method. In general, these librarians considered themselves to be confident in locating trials. Different resources were used to inform study types, including textbooks, articles, library guides and websites.

Discussion: Medical librarians indicated that while they felt confident in their searching skills, they did not have a definitive source of information about the various types of clinical trials, and their responses demonstrated a clear need and desire for more information on study design methodology.