ObjectiveThe most recent survey on instruction practices in libraries affiliated with accredited medical institutions in the United States was conducted in 1996. The present study sought to update these data, while expanding to include Canadian libraries. Additional analysis was undertaken to test for statistically significant differences between library instruction in the United States and Canada and between libraries affiliated with highly ranked and unranked institutions.MethodsA twenty-eight-question survey was distributed to libraries affiliated with accredited US and Canadian medical schools to assess what and how often librarians teach, as well as how librarians are involved in the curriculum committee and if they are satisfied with their contact with students and faculty. Quantitative data were analyzed with SAS, R, and MedCalc.ResultsMost of the seventy-three responding libraries provided instruction, both asynchronously and synchronously. Library instruction was most likely to be offered in two years of medical school, with year one seeing the most activity. Database use was the most frequently taught topic, and libraries reported a median of five librarians providing instruction, with larger staffs offering slightly more education sessions per year. Libraries associated with highly ranked schools were slightly more likely to offer sessions that were integrated into the medical school curriculum in year four and to offer sessions in more years overall.ConclusionsIn US and Canadian libraries, regardless of the rank of the affiliated medical school, librarians’ provision of instruction in multiple formats on multiple topics is increasingly common.
Health sciences librarians have long discussed the persistence of what is called the "5-year rule": limiting nursing literature searches to articles published within the last 5 years. They are troubled by the negative impact of stringent literature search criteria on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of evidence for nursing practice and research. Sporadically, this issue has also arisen in nursing journal editorials. Labeled as "troubling and disturbing," this limit fosters an "ageism of knowledgediscarding the old to create an illusion of the new." 1 An editor of the American Journal of Nursing stated, Students and nurses engaged in EBP projects are incorrectly being told to search the literature for the last 3 to 5 years…. Limiting literature reviews to an arbitrary number of years sometimes wrongly suggests that the best work on the issue occurred recently. 2 Another editorial summed up the situation as "dishonoring our own." 3 Additional commonly used search criteria that concern librarians include "nurse as author" and "primary study." These 3 restrictions may hinder engagement in research and evidence-based practice (EBP) by students and direct care nurses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.