Do quality improvement systems improve health library services? A systematic review

Gray, Hannah; Sutton, Gary; Treadway, Victoria

doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00996.x

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Papers by Hershey, Kaufman, Aabo, ALIA, Bryant and Allen were assessed as informative but of variable quality and lacking in adequate supporting evidence. Gardois, Medernach, Marshall, Gray and Sievert provided evidence of the intangible benefits or the intrinsic value of clinical libraries but did not identify relevant values or costs of service delivery. Given the recent interest in ‘value of information’ in reducing uncertainty, methods and benchmarks for evaluating ROI in relation to these benefits are emerging.…”

Section: Excluded Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demonstrating the financial impact of clinical libraries: a systematic review

Madden

Collins

Macias

et al. 2016

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the tools used to measure the financial value of libraries in a clinical setting. Methods: Searches were carried out on ten databases for the years 2003-2013, with a final search before completion to identify any recent papers. Results: Eleven papers met the final inclusion criteria. There was no evidence of a single 'best practice', and many metrics used to measure financial impact of clinical libraries were developed on an ad hoc basis locally. The most common measures of financial impact were value of time saved, value of resource collection against cost of alternative sources, cost avoidance and revenue generated through assistance on grant submissions. Few papers provided an insight into the longer term impact on the library service resulting from submitting return on investment (ROI) or other financial impact statements. • It is worth pursuing the concept of value of information studies in the context of clinical libraries.• Health library associations should collaborate on the development of common measurement standards, which reflect accounting practices in the wider clinical setting.• Health librarians should commit to adopting and implementing these standards in their own organisation.• It is important that health librarians identify and include feedback and outcomes in studies analysing the financial impact of their clinical library service.

show abstract

Section: Excluded Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demonstrating the financial impact of clinical libraries: a systematic review

Madden

Collins

Macias

et al. 2016

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Twenty-one studies that reported on quality assessment in the methods section referenced the tools or aids used: 14 studies reported using one aid, four studies reported using two aids, and three studies used three or more aids (see table 3). Seven studies modified the aids (see table 2), but in four of these studies (Beverley, Bath, & Booth, 2004;Brettle, 2007;Brettle et al, 2011;Gray, Sutton, & Treadway, 2012) what modifications were made is unclear. Four studies reported using bespoke (i.e.…”

Section: Quality Assessment Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the systematic reviews were either unclear about which of the included studies met each of the criteria assessed, or the systematic reviews were unclear about what criteria was used to assess the included studies. Two studies reported only criteria relating to the validity and reliability of the outcome tool (Ankem, 2005;Ankem, 2006a) while one study failed to report on all studies in the quality assessment (Gray et al, 2012). The remaining 14 studies were assessed as unclear as they did not report on quality assessment of the included studies in the results section of their review.…”

Section: Prisma Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review

Maden¹,

Kotas²

2016

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective – Systematic reviews are becoming increasingly popular within the Library and Information Science (LIS) domain. This paper has three aims: to review approaches to quality assessment in published LIS systematic reviews in order to assess whether and how LIS reviewers report on quality assessment a priori in systematic reviews, to model the different quality assessment aids used by LIS reviewers, and to explore if and how LIS reviewers report on and incorporate the quality of included studies into the systematic review analysis and conclusions. Methods – The authors undertook a methodological study of published LIS systematic reviews using a known cohort of published systematic reviews of LIS-related research. Studies were included if they were reported as a “systematic review” in the title, abstract, or methods section. Meta-analyses that did not incorporate a systematic review and studies in which the systematic review was not a main objective were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies. Data were extracted on the type of synthesis, whether quality assessment was planned and undertaken, the number of reviewers involved in assessing quality, the types of tools or criteria used to assess the quality of the included studies, how quality assessment was assessed and reported in the systematic review, and whether the quality of the included studies was considered in the analysis and conclusions of the review. In order to determine the quality of the reporting and incorporation of quality assessment in LIS systematic reviews, each study was assessed against criteria relating to quality assessment in the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009) and the AMSTAR tool (Shea et al., 2007). Results – Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. The results demonstrate great variation on the breadth, depth, and transparency of the quality assessment process in LIS systematic reviews. Nearly one third of the LIS systematic reviews included in this study did not report on quality assessment in the methods, and less than one quarter adequately incorporated quality assessment in the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Only nine of the 26 systematic reviews that undertook some form of quality assessment incorporated considerations of how the quality of the included studies impacted on the validity of the review findings in the analysis, conclusion, and recommendations. The large number of different quality assessment tools identified reflects not only the disparate nature of the LIS evidence base (Brettle, 2009) but also a lack of consensus around criteria on which to assess the quality of LIS research. Conclusion – Greater clarity, definition, and understanding of the methodology and concept of “quality” in the systematic review process are required not only by LIS reviewers but also by editors of journals in accepting such studies for publication. Further research and guidance is needed on identifying the best tools and approaches to incorporate considerations of quality in LIS systematic reviews. LIS reviewers need to improve the robustness and transparency with which quality assessment is undertaken and reported in systematic reviews. Above all, LIS reviewers need to be explicit in coming to a conclusion on how the quality of the included studies may impact on their review findings.

show abstract

“…In this issue breadth of the Health Information and Libraries Journal we are pleased to publish contributions originating from Canada, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America …”

Section: In This Issue…mentioning

confidence: 99%

Informing the public health

Birkenhead¹

2012

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why with an increase in the amount of health information, and ways of accessing it, so many people experience poor health? What is the role of health library and information professionals in improving public health? These questions are of great interest to me. There are many examples of initiatives, particularly in the public library sector, which address health issues, however they are often very local and best practice is not always shared. Clearly changing the health status of a population requires more than information, but information is clearly an essential component. If health information is to be effective in improving public health then we need to address health literacy, and this is where health library and information professionals can play a significant role. Through this journal and the other activities of the Health Libraries Group I hope we can share good practice and explore new ways that health library and information workers can improve the health of individuals and communities.

show abstract

Do quality improvement systems improve health library services? A systematic review

Cited by 8 publications

References 10 publications

Demonstrating the financial impact of clinical libraries: a systematic review

Demonstrating the financial impact of clinical libraries: a systematic review

Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review

Informing the public health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About