Journal of the Medical Library Association最新文献

This study assessed the print collection of an Asian academic medical library using list-checking. The library's book collection was matched to Doody's Core Titles (DCT) subspecialties to identify strong and weak subject areas and understand temporal trends from 2014 to 2020. Basic sciences and nursing were the strongest subspecialties from 2018 to 2020, with many subjects having 100% matches, likely because most academic programs share the same basic sciences foundation subjects and nursing collections had been developed for many years as a long-standing program of the institution. Associated health-related disciplines was the weakest subspecialty. These subjects need to be prioritized in collection development. All subspecialties exhibited an increasing trend of matching between 2014 and 2020. Electronic books were included in the matching to DCT 2020; however, the match was low compared to print only or both print and electronic titles. DCT title matching can not only identify gaps in library collections that need to be filled but also point toward opportunities to develop strong and varied collections in medicine and allied health.

Objective: Health sciences librarian roles are evolving to better meet the needs of faculty. This study explores nursing faculty needs at the University of British Columbia through the research lifecycle framework of planning, conducting, disseminating, and assessing the impact of their research.

Methods: A mixed methods survey study with Likert scale, multiple-choice, or ordinal ranking-scale questions and six open-response questions was conducted. The format was a web-based Qualtrics survey; participants had approximately three weeks to respond.

Results: Nursing faculty identified the dissemination phase as benefiting most from library support prioritizing reference management and archiving research data as the top needs in that phase. Assessing impact skills such as citation analysis and Altmetrics training was ranked second. The Planning phase was ranked third with systematic review and literature review support most needed. The Conducting phase was identified as the phase where they needed the least support.

Conclusion: Understanding the needs of researchers and enhancing scholar productivity is vital to offering responsive library research services. Across the research lifecycle, nursing faculty identified reference management, data management, metrics evaluation, systematic reviews, and literature reviews as the key areas for which they need support.

Objective: Point-of-care tools (PoCTs) provide evidence-based information on patient care and procedures at the time of need. Registered nurses have unique practice needs, and many PoCTs are marketed to support their practice. However, there is little reported evidence in the literature about evaluating nursing-focused PoCTs.

Case presentation: The investigators developed a rubric containing evaluation criteria based on content, coverage of nursing topics, transparency of the evidence, user perception, and customization of PoCTs for supporting nursing practice. The investigators selected five PoCTs cited in the literature and of interest to local nursing leadership: ClinicalKey for Nursing, DynaMed, Lippincott's Advisor and Procedures, Nursing Reference Center Plus, and UpToDate. Application of the rubric found Lippincott had the highest coverage of diagnoses, while ClinicalKey for Nursing had strong content focused on interventions and outcomes. Nursing Reference Center Plus provided the most well-rounded coverage of nursing terminology and topics. DynaMed and UpToDate were more transparent with indicating conflict of interest, but both had lower coverage of nursing terminology, content, and care processes.

Conclusion: None of the five PoCTs strongly met all of the evaluated criteria. The rubric developed for this study highlights each PoCT's strengths and weaknesses that can then be used to inform the decision-making process based on priorities and budget. The investigators recommend licensing a nursing PoCT and a PoCT like DynaMed or UpToDate to provide comprehensive, evidence-based, patient care coverage and to meet the diverse information needs of nurses.

3D printing is an emerging trend in medical care [1]. Medical libraries can play a key role in advancing this new technology [2]. Using a National Library of Medicine (NLM) grant, the medical library was able to purchase a basic 3D printer to create models for patient care and medical education. Despite a slow rollout for the new technology, there was a strong need once word of mouth spread about the new 3D printer. The one-year grant cycle, as well as the following three years, provide supporting evidence that even a basic 3D printer can advance patient care for clinicians and improve medical education for students [3]. The popularity of the technology, clinical support and demand, as well as student interest can drive the program forward on its own and support the medical library's mission to improve community care and create an environment of enhanced learning [1].

The National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC). 8400 Corporate Drive, Suite 500, Landover, MD 20785; https://naric.com/; free.

GIBLIB (4.0). GIBLIB, 811 W 7Th Street, 13th Floor, Los Angeles, CA; https://www.giblib.com/; Contact for institutional pricing https://www.giblib.com/services/institutional-pricing; Individual pricing structure: Basic, Standard, and Premium plans. Compatible with PC, Mac, tablet, and mobile.

Objective: The study purpose was to understand how early months of the COVID-19 pandemic altered interlibrary loan (ILL) and document delivery (DD) in North American health science libraries (HSLs), specifically the decision-making and workflow adjustments associated with accessing their own collections and obtaining content not available via ILL.

Methods: Researchers distributed an online 26-question survey through 24 health science library email lists from January 6-February 7, 2021. Respondents reported their library's ILL and DD activities from March-August 2020, including ILL/DD usage and policies, collection access, decision-making, and workflow adjustments. In addition to calculating frequencies, cross-tabulation and statistical tests were performed to test a priori potential associations. Two researchers independently and thematically analyzed responses to the 2 open-ended questions and reached consensus on themes.

Results: Hospital libraries represented 52% (n=226/431) of respondents, along with 42% academic (n=179) and 6% (n=26) multi-type or other special. Only 1% (n=5) closed completely with no remote services, but many, 45% (n=194), ceased ILL of print materials. More than half (n=246/423; 58%) agreed that ILL requests likely to be filled from print remained unfilled more than is typical. Open-ended questions yielded 5 themes on ILL/DD staffing, setup, and systems; 6 on impacts for libraries and library users.

Conclusion: Lack of communication regarding collection availability and staffing resulted in delayed or unfilled requests. Hospital and academic libraries made similar decisions about continuing services but reported different experiences in areas such as purchasing digital content. Hybrid ILL/DD workflows may continue for managing these services.

Objective: Academics are under great pressure to publish their research, the rewards for which are well known (tenure, promotion, grant funding, professional prestige). As open access publishing gains acceptance as a publishing option, researchers may choose a "predatory publisher." The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations and rationale of pharmacy and nursing academics in the United States to publish in open access journals that may be considered "predatory."

Methods: A 26-item questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed electronically to approximately 4,500 academic pharmacists and nurses, 347 of whom completed questionnaires (~8%). Pairwise correlations were performed followed by a logistic regression to evaluate statistical associations between participant characteristics and whether participants had ever paid an article processing fee (APF).

Results: Participants who had published more articles, were more familiar with predatory publishing, and who were more concerned about research metrics and tenure were more likely to have published in open access journals. Moderate to high institutional research intensity has an impact on the likelihood of publishing open access. The majority of participants who acknowledged they had published in a predatory journal took no action after realizing the journal was predatory and reported no negative impact on their career for having done so.

Conclusion: The results of this study provide data and insight into publication decisions made by pharmacy and nursing academics. Gaining a better understanding of who publishes in predatory journals and why can help address the problems associated with predatory publishing at the root.

Researchers grapple with a challenging and consequential decision each time they choose a journal for manuscript submission. There are several online tools that attempt to identify appropriate journals for a manuscript, but each of these tools has shortcomings in terms of the journal data they provide and the exploration functionality they offer-and not one of these tools is open source. Jot is a free and open-source web application that matches manuscripts in the fields of biomedicine and life sciences with suitable journals, based on a manuscript's title, abstract, and (optionally) citations. Jot gathers a wealth of data on journal quality, impact, fit, and open access options that can be explored through a dashboard of linked, interactive visualizations.