Facilitating the Impact Implementation Programme

Markless, Sharon; Streatfield, David

doi:10.29173/lirg181

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Weightman et al (2009) provide suggestions for a practical, but "low-bias" impact study for health libraries and basic principles of questionnaire and interview surveys. Markless and Streatfield (2005) present 12 laws of impact evaluation and outline stages of the research process. The SCONUL Impact Initiative also proposes stages in assessing the impact of higher education libraries, from choosing an intervention and relevant indicators to presenting results (Payne, 2006).…”

Section: Measuring Value and Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Library value and impact: Taking the step from knowing it to showing it

Dunne

Nelson

Dillon³

et al. 2014

LIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use (NDC) is a unique Irish information resource that embraces elements of several library types: national, public, special, academic, digital, and health. This paper presents the results of an evaluation study carried out by NDC staff in two parts, a value survey and impact interviews. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to examine aspects of the value and impact of the NDC’s resources and services. Many elements of our approach worked well and contributed to the achievement of our aims and objectives. We outline our approach and suggest some modifications that we might make if we were to repeat the study.

show abstract

Section: Measuring Value and Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Library value and impact: Taking the step from knowing it to showing it

Dunne

Nelson

Dillon³

et al. 2014

LIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…how to measure the impact of library and information services. Examples include Fried, Kochanowicz, & Chiranov (2010);Imholz & Arns (2007); Lockyer & Conyers (2007); Markless & Streatfield (2005);McNicol (2005); Melo & Pires (2008); Poll & Payne (2006); Rooney--Browne (2011), Town (2006); Weightman, Urquhart, Spink, & Thomas (2009).…”

Section: The Impact and Measurement Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the impact of LIS Research Projects

Cruickshank¹,

Hall²,

Taylor‐Smith³

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Full list of recommendations 5 2 Research method 7 3 Literature review 8 3.1 The impact and measurement of research 8 3.2 Reported low impact of LIS research on practice: problems and solutions 9 3.3 Literature review conclusions 13 4 Summaries of case studies 14 4.1 Project: Open to all 14 4.2 eValued 15 4.3 16 4.4 Evaluating clinical librarian services: a systematic review 17 4.5 School libraries in the UK: A worthwhile past, a difficult present and a transformed future? 18 4.6 Conclusions from the case studies 19 5 Findings and recommendations 21 5.1 How projects are conceived and planned: the need for relevance for impact 21 5.2 Execution of research: the need to involve practitioners for impact 22 5.3 The reporting of findings: dissemination for impact 23 5.4 Organisational factors: Creating a receptive audience 25 6 Discussion and conclusions 26 6.1 Overall conclusions 26 6.2 Clarifying the relationship between research and practice 26 Areas for further work 1 Glossary and acronyms 28 References 29 Appendices 31 How projects are conceived and planned: the need for relevance R1. The LIS research community should develop and promote strategies that will help and encourage researchers to seek active engagement from practitioners in designing and carrying out their research. R2. The LIS research community should develop and promote sector-specific strategies to encourage funders to support research that is relevant to the needs of the practitioner community. R3. LIS researchers should be encouraged to seek high-profile sponsorship and ongoing support of research projects. For example, through establishing steering committees including (influential) stakeholders. Execution of research: the need to involve practitioners R4. LIS researchers should be encouraged to address practitioner engagement at the project planning stage, for example, by adopting methods, approaches and dissemination strategies that involve practitioners throughout the project. Reporting findings: dissemination R5. Researchers should be encouraged to develop dissemination strategies aligned to where and how practitioners access new information and create (embed) outputs which support the use of research results R6. Where appropriate, researchers should be encouraged to include provision for teaching and community support materials in project plans. R7. Researchers should be encouraged to publish reports with clear lists of recommendations, in accessible language. This is in addition to any academic papers researchers may choose to publish. R8. Those with responsibility for freely-available open access repositories of LIS research materials should be encouraged to raise awareness of their resources amongst the practitioner communities. Similarly CILIP should publicise membership benefits that include access to a number of research publications.

show abstract

“…The assessment of impact of library/information services on the business of the organizations which they serve, which in the case of a health service will be improved outcomes for patients, better promotion of good health, and cost saving, is a topic which is generally accepted as vital, but difficult to achieve. Many methods and techniques have been adopted in an attempt to evaluate the impact of library/information services in general; 3–13 none of these, however, has been generally accepted as providing a reliable measure of impact. A number of systematic reviews of impact studies in the specific area of value of information provided through health‐care library services as it impacts patient care have also been published 14–18 .…”

Section: Introduction and Aims Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of outreach services for primary care and mental health; assessing the impact

Robinson

Bawden

2007

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives : This paper reports an evaluation, carried out for London Health Libraries, of the impact of outreach services to primary care and mental health workers in 13 different settings. The main aims of the project were to identify the impact being made by the service, and to produce best-practice guidelines for outreach services in this kind of community setting. Methods : Analysis of documents, analysis of any evaluation already carried out, interviews with outreach librarians, survey of a representative sample of users (eight services). The services evaluated were very diverse in terms of setting, structure, functions and activities. The evaluation was therefore largely qualitative. Emphasis was placed on trying to identify critical incidents, where it could be shown unambiguously that the outreach services made a difference to practice. Findings : Service recipients felt better informed, more up to date, more aware of resources, more confident and supported in their work, and saved time. Direct impacts, such as improved patient care, cost savings, etc., were more difficult to establish. Conclusions : The study identified the main areas of impact, and the main factors which affected this. Recommendations for good practice in such outreach services are made. Lessons of this evaluation for impact studies in general are presented, in particular the difficulty of assessing 'direct' impacts.

show abstract

Facilitating the Impact Implementation Programme

Cited by 15 publications

References 3 publications

Library value and impact: Taking the step from knowing it to showing it

Library value and impact: Taking the step from knowing it to showing it

Enhancing the impact of LIS Research Projects

Evaluation of outreach services for primary care and mental health; assessing the impact

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About