Research Support in Health Sciences Libraries: A Scoping Review

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.

Librarian Support for Researchers in Ontario Hospitals

“…Under this kind of budget constraint, we were surprised to find that 5 respondants reported that they had all the databases or resources they needed to support research. Similar to previous studies [7] our study found that the majority of projects supported were literature studies, followed by support for clinical studies. This is not surprising as evidence-based medicine is a priority in many healthcare organizations and both systematic reviews and clinical trials are cornerstones of scientific evidence.…”

“…Hospital librarians typically support the research process in traditional ways, doing literature searches, providing articles, resources and expertise as needed. A scoping review found that research support provided by health sciences librarians was predominantly for systematic review support, though there was an emerging role in data management support [7]. Another study described a team of clinicians and librarians who created an online workspace using web 2.0 tools for use by researchers within their hospital.…”

“…Interestingly, studies have shown that fewer than 50% of health science libraries evaluate their services, with a scoping review reporting that only 25 of 60 studies included in the study mentioned evaluation [7]. Additionally, a systematic review of the effectiveness of librarian provided services in healthcare found no studies of librarians providing direct services to researchers and patients in healthcare settings [11].…”

Application of bibliometrics in medicine: a historical bibliometrics analysis

“…Furthermore, the historical overview of the use of bibliometrics in medicine might contribute to the knowledge, which a health librarian can use to improve his everyday work, following the Palmer and Colton (1978, p. 118) claim, that ‘mayor value of history, historians, and methods of historical thinking is not in their contribution of and to things past, but in the knowledge and involvement history establishes in everyday people in everyday world’. As recent studies show, the inclusion of new services like bibliometrics is essential in the state of the art health libraries (Åström & Hansson, 2013; Dexter et al, 2019; González‐Alcaide & Poveda‐Pastor, 2018; Visintini, Boutet, Manley, & Helwig, 2018; Xie & Zhang, 2018).…”