Author Archives: Lance Fox

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Presenter: Lance Fox

Citation: Eriksen, M.B., & Frandsen, T.F. (2018) The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(4), 420-431. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.345

Article abstract:

Objective: This review aimed to determine if the use of the patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) model as a search strategy tool affects the quality of a literature search.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), Scopus, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) catalog up until January 9, 2017. Reference lists were scrutinized, and citation searches were performed on the included studies. The primary outcome was the quality of literature searches and the secondary outcome was time spent on the literature search when the PICO model was used as a search strategy tool, compared to the use of another conceptualizing tool or unguided searching.

Results: A total of 2,163 records were identified, and after removal of duplicates and initial screening, 22 full-text articles were assessed. Of these, 19 studies were excluded and 3 studies were included, data were extracted, risk of bias was assessed, and a qualitative analysis was conducted. The included studies compared PICO to the PIC truncation or links to related articles in PubMed, PICOS, and sample, phenomenon of interest, design, evaluation, research type (SPIDER). One study compared PICO to unguided searching. Due to differences in intervention, no quantitative analysis was performed.

Conclusions: Only few studies exist that assess the effect of the PICO model vis-a-vis other available models or even vis-a-vis the use of no model. Before implications for current practice can be drawn, well-designed studies are needed to evaluate the role of the tool used to devise a search strategy.

Critical Appraisal: 

Questions:

1) What has been your experience with PICO? Do you find it improves the quality of your searches? Is it effective for teaching others how to search?

2) Have you used other models before like SPIDER or SPICE? What has been your experience with those? What about unguided searching?

3) None of the 3 studies that were assessed investigated the time spent on literature searches. Do you think using a model like PICO would have any impact on time compared to unguided searching?

4) Two prominent issues that were mentioned are the number of search blocks and avoiding outcome-related terms in the search strategy. Is this something you focus on when searching? When do you include or exclude outcome-related terms?

5) What are your thoughts on the criteria the authors developed for assessing the risk of bias in the studies they evaluated?

6) What are the authors’ conclusions? Does this study make you think any differently about the use of PICO (or any model) in your work?

7) Was there something missing from this study that you were expecting or hoping to read?

Completed Critical Appraisal Summary

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Presenter: Megan Kennedy

Citation: Maestro, L., & Chadwick, D.J. (2017) Canadian health libraries’ response to the truth and reconciliation commission’s calls to action: A literature review and content analysis. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 38(3), 92-101. doi:
https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla/jabsc.v38i3.29300

Article abstract:

Introduction: As part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s (TRC) Final Report on the history and legacy of residential schools in Canada, ninety-four (94) Calls to Action were identified. Of those, seven are health-specific. The objective of this research paper is to determine how Canadian health library websites are responding to these calls to action.

Methods: The authors conducted an initial literature review to gain an understanding of the context of Indigenous health in Canada. A content analysis of Canadian health library websites was conducted to track mentions of the TRC and their responses to the need for Indigenous-focused resources.

Results: The results of content analysis indicated few online responses to the TRC’s Calls to Action from Canadian health libraries. Only thirty-three per cent of Canadian health libraries had content that was Indigenous-focused, and only about fifteen per cent of health libraries had visible content related to the TRC’s Calls to Action. Academic and consumer health libraries were more likely to have both TRC- and Indigenous-focused content.

Discussion: Nuances related to the research question resulted in some challenges to research design. For example, website content analysis is an imperfect indicator of real-world action. Limitations in research design notwithstanding, visibility is an important part of conveying commitment to the TRC, and the information available indicates the Canadian medical community is not living up to that commitment.

Conclusion: Canadian health libraries need to do more to show a visible commitment to the TRC’s Calls to Action.

Critical Appraisal: 

Questions:

1) At the time the paper was written, only 33% of Canadian health libraries has content that was Indigenous focused and only 15% had visible content related to the TRC’s Calls to Action.

-How much do you feel this has changed in the 2 years since this paper was published?

-Can you think of examples in your libraries where you are actively answering the calls?

2) What are some of the obstacles in your library/organization that you see impeding the answering of the TRC’s Calls to Action?

3) Do you believe that the content-analysis methods used to collect data were robust enough to support the authors’ final conclusions?

4) What do you think about the authors’ comments on their challenges searching databases using controlled vocabulary for “Indigenous”?

-Does your library have a work around to facilitate retrieval of Indigenous content?

5) Do you agree with the authors’ comments about recognizing the TRC in Indigenous initiatives?

“…although we have determined that the important thing to acknowledge is that these initiatives exist, regardless of the catalyst for their implementation, recognition of the TRC as a significant national undertaking is still important, and is not being addressed to the level it should be.”

6) Was there anything you wanted more from in the results or something you wish the authors had included in their analysis?

Completed Critical Appraisal Summary

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Presenter: Erin Langman

Citation: Visintini, S., Boutet, M., Manley, A., & Helwig, M. (2018). Research support in health sciences libraries: a scoping review. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 39(2), 56-78. doi:
https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29366

Article abstract:

Background:

As part of a health sciences library’s internal assessment of its research support services, an environmental scan and literature review were conducted to identify research services offered elsewhere in Canada. Through this process, it became clear that a more formal review of the academic literature would help libraries make informed decisions about their services. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of research services provided in health sciences libraries contexts.Methods:

Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, LISTA, LISS, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Google for articles which described the development, implementation, or evaluation of one or more research support initiatives in a health sciences library context. We identified additional articles by searching reference lists of included studies and soliciting medical library listservs.Results:

Our database searches retrieved 7134 records, 4026 after duplicates were removed. Title/abstract screening excluded 3751, with 333 records retained for full-text screening. Seventy-five records were included, reporting on 74 different initiatives. Included studies were published between 1990 and 2017, the majority from North American and academic library contexts. Major service areas reported were the creation of new research support positions, and support services for systematic review support, grants, data management, open access and repositories.Conclusion:

This scoping review is the first review to our knowledge to map research support services in the health sciences library context. It identified main areas of research service support provided by health sciences libraries that can be used for benchmarking or information gathering purposes.

Critical Appraisal: 

Questions

1. What research services does your library currently offer? Did the article provide any ideas or models for future service provision? A “spectrum of services” figure is provided by the authors on page 66; are there any services your library currently provides on the left-end of the spectrum that could be expanded upon?
2. What are some potential barriers for service expansion at your institution? The creation of new positions was central to 27 of the studies, and fee-based services were mentioned by three of the studies; would this potentially remove some barriers? Are either option feasible?
3. Only three of the identified studies reported conducting a needs assessment prior to implementing a new service, and less than half included some form of evaluation. The authors argue that future studies must focus more on evaluation. How does your institution currently evaluate services or decide to offer a new service? How can this be improved upon?
4. Open discussion

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Presenter: Lukas Miller

Citation: Djulbegovic, B., & Guyatt, G.H. (2017). Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet, 390(10092), 415-423. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31592-6

Article abstract:

In response to limitations in the understanding and use of published evidence, evidence-based medicine (EBM) began as a movement in the early 1990s. EBM’s initial focus was on educating clinicians in the understanding and use of published literature to optimise clinical care, including the science of systematic reviews. EBM progressed to recognise limitations of evidence alone, and has increasingly stressed the need to combine critical appraisal of the evidence with patient’s values and preferences through shared decision making. In another progress, EBM incorporated and further developed the science of producing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines pioneered by investigators in the 1980s. EBM’s enduring contributions to clinical medicine include placing the practice of medicine on a solid scientific basis, the development of more sophisticated hierarchies of evidence, the recognition of the crucial role of patient values and preferences in clinical decision making, and the development of the methodology for generating trustworthy recommendations.

Critical Appraisal: 

Note: Gordon Guyatt is considered the originator of the concept of evidence-based medicine.

1. Can you relate to any changes to librarianship (health/medical or otherwise) that coincide with the author’s observations of EBM’s own evolution?
2. BD and GHG provide a prediction for the next 25 years based upon their review. Given their predictions, how do you think libraries must adapt to meet the needs of evidence-based research & practice?
3. Did you learn something new, or has your perspective on evidence-based medicine changed in any way after reading this article? If yes, how might it affect your practice? Will this help you teach/explain EBM?
4. [If time, open discussion]

Completed Critical Appraisal Summary

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Presenter: Catherine Young

Citation: Ayre, S., Brettle, A., Gilroy, D., Knock, D., Mitchelmore, R.,… Turner, J. (2018). Developing a generic tool to routinely measure the impact of health libraries. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 35(3), 227-245. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12223

Article abstract:

Background
Health libraries contribute to many activities of a health care organisation. Impact assessment needs to capture that range of contributions.

Objectives
To develop and pilot a generic impact questionnaire that: (1) could be used routinely across all English NHS libraries; (2) built on previous impact surveys; and (3) was reliable and robust.

Methods
This collaborative project involved: (1) literature search; (2) analysis of current best practice and baseline survey of use of current tools and requirements; (3) drafting and piloting the questionnaire; and (4) analysis of the results, revision and plans for roll out.

Findings
The framework selected was the International Standard Methods And Procedures For Assessing The Impact Of Libraries (ISO 16439). The baseline survey (n = 136 library managers) showed that existing tools were not used, and impact assessment was variable. The generic questionnaire developed used a Critical Incident Technique. Analysis of the findings (n = 214 health staff and students), plus comparisons with previous impact studies indicated that the questionnaire should capture the impact for all types of health libraries.

Conclusions
The collaborative project successfully piloted a generic impact questionnaire that, subject to further validation, should apply to many types of health library and information services.

Critical Appraisal: 

Critical Appraisal Worksheet

Completed Critical Appraisal Summary

Meeting date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Presenter: Michelle Dalidowicz

Citation: Norton, Hannah F., (2018). Use of Annual Surveying to Identify Technology Trends and Improve Service Provision . Journal of the Medical Library Association. 106 (3), p . 320-329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.324

Article abstract:
Objective: At an academic health sciences library serving a wide variety of disciplines, studying library users’ technology use provides necessary information on intersection points for library services. Administering a similar survey annually for five years generated a holistic view of users’ technology needs and preferences over time.

Methods: From 2012 to 2016, the University of Florida Health Science Center Library (HSCL) annually administered a sixteen-to-twenty question survey addressing health sciences users’ technology awareness and use and their interest in using technology to engage with the library and its services. The survey was distributed throughout the HSC via email invitation from liaison librarians to their colleges and departments and advertisement on the HSCL home page.

Results: Smartphone ownership among survey respondents was nearly universal, and a majority of respondents also owned a tablet. While respondents were likely to check library hours, use medical apps, and use library electronic resources from their mobile devices, they were unlikely to friend or follow the library on Facebook or Twitter or send a call number from the catalog. Respondents were more likely to have used EndNote than any other citation management tool, but over 50% of respondents had never used each tool or never heard of it.

Conclusions: Annual review of survey results has allowed librarians to identify users’ needs and interests, leading to incremental changes in services offered. Reviewing the aggregate data allowed strategic consideration of how technology impacts library interactions with users, with implications toward library marketing, training, and service development.

Critical Appraisal: 

Critical Appraisal Worksheet

Critical Appraisal Questions:

1. How could these results inform your technology acquisition, policy and/or training?
2. Was there anything that was particularly surprising to you about the results?
3. Do you sense that the technology gaps from this study could be the same at your institution? Is there anything else that might be missing [e.g. Training topics]?

Completed Critical Appraisal Summary