ObjectiveWhat roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians’ systematic reviews services.MethodsFor this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts.ResultsWe identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles.ConclusionLibrarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations.
Objectives: To assess the current landscape of hospital libraries by collecting benchmarking data from hospital librarians in the U.S. and other countries. Since the last MLA benchmarking survey in 2002 hospital libraries have faced significant changes including downsizing, position and library elimination, and hospital mergers. This survey will provides information to inform the development and implementation of effective advocacy for hospital libraries. Methods: A web-based, anonymous survey was designed to collect information from hospital librarians representing stand-alone hospitals and hospital systems. The 57-question survey was distributed via select list servs, targeting the US and Canada but open to any country. The topic areas covered hospital/health system, library, and library staff demographics; library characteristics and scope of service; interlibrary loan and document delivery; library funding; and library budget. Hospital library benchmarking surveys, including the previous MLA surveys, were reviewed and applicable questions were added. Results: There were a total of 180 respondents but the total number of responses for each question varied. Select results are as follows: of the responding libraries, 67.2% were part of a hospital system; 24.4% had merged with or were bought by another hospital or health system and, of those, 77.1% had acquired 1-5 hospitals in the last 10 years; 77.9% were not for profits; over half (55.2%) had <5,001 FTE in the organization; 56.9% had one library; 47.7% had 1 FTE librarian, 34.9% had 2-5; 82.1% did not or were not able to use social media; 60.7% didn’t have strategic plans; 66.1% belonged to a consortium; 48.2% provided up to 250 search requests a year; 66.3% did not receive funding outside of their organization; 32.5% had budgets for print books totaling less than $1,000; 30.1% had budgets, excluding salaries, of less than $100,000 and 9.7% had budgets over $1M. Conclusions: These findings contribute to the field’s knowledge of hospital library demographics as well as the services provided. The results suggest implications for hospital librarians regarding staffing levels and the depth of services within their unique settings, especially within the context of rapidly expanding health systems.
The Medical Library Association’s InSight Initiative provides an open and collaborative environment for library and industry partners to discuss vexing problems and find solutions to better serve their users. The initiative’s fifth summit, continuing work from the previous summit, focused on understanding how users discover and access information in the clinical environment. During the summit, participants were divided into working groups and encouraged to create a tangible product as a result of their discussions. At the end of the summit, participants established a framework for understanding users’ pain points, discussed possible solutions to those points, and received feedback on their work from an End User Advisory Board comprising physicians, clinical researchers, and clinical faculty in biomedicine. In addition to the pain point framework, participants are developing MLA InSight Initiative Learning content with modules to educate librarians and publishers about critical aspects of user behavior. The 2020 Insight Initiative Fall Forum will serve as a virtual home for constructive dialogue between health sciences librarians and publishers on improving discovery and access to information.
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.