Using library search service metrics to demonstrate library value and manage workload

Gann, Laurissa; Pratt, Greg

doi:10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.015

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 71 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the remaining 37 (51%) ESM systematic reviews included in this research, the time needed to create the search strategies was registered at the time of search development. For the comparison data pooled from published time studies (PTS), we identified 105 published or unpublished systematic review projects . These were combined with results from an online questionnaire in which information specialists were asked about the time they spent creating and translating searches for their last systematic review (N = 99) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because data on the time needed to create the search strategies in DAH systematic reviews were unavailable, as a secondary comparison, we collated data from several published studies describing the time needed to create searches for systematic reviews. 4,[10][11][12][13][14] We contacted the authors for detailed information about individual systematic review projects when it was not clear from the published papers. These individual data per review were then pooled in an MS Excel file, where we calculated quartiles and median values.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of a new method for librarian‐mediated literature searches for systematic reviews

Bramer

Rethlefsen

Mast

et al. 2017

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate and validate the time of completion and results of a new method of searching for systematic reviews, the exhaustive search method (ESM), using a pragmatic comparison.Methods: Single-line search strategies were prepared in a text document. Term completeness was ensured with a novel optimization technique. Macros in MS Word converted the syntaxes between databases and interfaces almost automatically. We compared search characteristics, such as number of search terms and databases, and outcomes, such as number of included and retrieved references and precision, from ESM searches and other Dutch academic hospitals identified by searching PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2014 and 2016. We compared time to perform the ESM with a secondary comparator of recorded search times from published literature and contact with authors to acquire unpublished data.Results: We identified 73 published Erasmus MC systematic reviews and 258 published by other Dutch academic hospitals meeting our criteria. We pooled search time data from 204 other systematic reviews. The ESM searches differed by using 2 times more databases, retrieving 44% more references, including 20% more studies in the final systematic review, but the time needed for the search was 8% of that of the control group. Similarities between methods include precision and the number of search terms. Conclusions:The evaluated similarities and differences suggest that the ESM is a highly efficient way to locate more references meeting the specified selection criteria in systematic reviews than traditional search methods.Further prospective research is required.KEYWORDS bibliographic databases, information storage and retrieval, quality improvement, review literature asThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a new method for librarian‐mediated literature searches for systematic reviews

Bramer

Rethlefsen

Mast

et al. 2017

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Librarians typically serve in searching and data management roles on systematic review teams, and many provide expertise in question design and content evaluation (Dudden & Protzko, 2011;Spencer & Eldredge, 2018). Two recent studies investigated total time for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Gann & Pratt, 2013;Saleh, Ratajeski & Bertolet, 2014); however, this is the first study to investigate the librarian's time on each task contributing to systematic reviews. The study involved a survey questionnaire emailed to various lists, and the evidence could be stronger if the research were supported by an observational study of librarians, where they tracked their time and effort while conducting one or several systematic reviews.…”

Section: Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Librarians’ Reported Systematic Review Completion Time Ranges Between 2 and 219 Total Hours with Most Variance due to Information Processing and Instruction

Williamson

2019

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Review of: Bullers, K., Howard, A. M., Hanson, A., Kearns, W. D., Orriola, J. J., Polo, R. L., & Sakmar, K. A. (2018). It takes longer than you think: Librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(2), 198-207. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.323 Abstract Objective – To investigate how long it takes for medical librarians to complete steps toward completion of a systematic review and to determine if the time differs based on factors including years of experience as a medical librarian and experience completing systematic reviews. Design – Survey research as a questionnaire disseminated via email distribution lists. Setting – At institutions that are members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) and librarians at Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) or American Osteopathic Association (AOA) member institutions. Subjects – Librarians of member institutions who have worked on systematic reviews. Methods – On December 11, 2015, AAHSL library directors and librarian members of AAMC and AOA were sent the survey and the recommendation to forward the survey to librarians on staff who have worked on systematic reviews. Reminders were sent on December 17, 2015, and the survey closed for participation on January 7, 2016. Participants who had worked on a systematic review within the past five years were asked to indicate experience by the number of systematic reviews completed, years of experience as a medical librarian, and how much time was spent, in hours, on the following: initial consultations/meetings; developing and testing the initial search strategy; translating the strategy for other databases; documenting the process; delivering the search results; writing their part of the manuscript; other tasks they could identify; and any instruction (i.e., training they provided to team members necessary for completion of the systematic review). Participants also further broke down the amount of their time searching, by percentage of time, in various resources, including literature indexes/databases, included studies’ references, trial registers, grey literature, and hand searching. Participants were also given space to add additional comments. The researchers reported summary statistics for phase one and, for phase two, excluded outliers and performed exploratory factor analysis, beginning with principal components analysis (PCA), followed by a varimax rotation, to determine if there was a relationship between the time on tasks and experience. Main Results – Of the 185 completed responses, 105 were analyzed for phase one because 80 responses were excluded due to missing data or no recent experience with a systematic review. The average respondent had between 1 and 6 years of experience: 1-3 years in librarianship (49.5%) and 4-6 years (23.8%). The time reported for completion of all tasks ranged from 2 to 219 hours with a mean of 30.7 hours. Most of the variance (61.6%) was caused by “information processing” and “interpersonal instruction/training” components. Search strategy development and testing had the highest average time at 8.4 hours. Within that category, databases accounted for 78.7% of time searching, followed by other searching methods. For remaining systematic review tasks, their averages were as follows: translating research (5.4 hours), delivering results (4.3 hours), conducting preliminary consultations (3.9 hours), instruction (3.8 hours), documentation (3.0 hours), additional tasks that were written-in by respondents (2.2 hours), and writing the manuscript (1.8 hours). The most common written-in tasks were development of inclusion/exclusion criteria, critical appraisal, and deduplication. Other write-ins included retrieving full-text articles, developing protocols, and selecting a journal for publishing the systematic review. For the second phase of analysis, 12 responses were excluded as extreme outliers, and the remaining 93 responses were analyzed to detect a relationship between experience and time on task. Prior systematic review experience correlated with shorter times performing instruction, consultation, and translation of searches. However, librarian years of experience affected the percentage of time on task, where greater years of experience led to more time spent consulting and instructing than the percentage for librarians with fewer years of experience. Librarians with greater than 7 years of experience skewed trends toward shorter time on task, and, with their data excluded, years of experience showed weak positive correlation with instruction and consultation. Conclusion – Because the average librarian participating on systematic review teams has had few prior experiences and because the times can vary widely based on assigned roles, duties, years of experience, and complexity of research question, it is not advised to establish expectations for librarians’ time on task. This may be why library administrators have disparate expectations of librarians’ involvement in systematic reviews and find it difficult to allocate and anticipate staff time on systematic review projects. While it may not be possible to set specific overarching guidelines for librarians’ expected time on systematic review tasks, librarian supervisors and library directors planning for their staff to offer systematic review services should work to develop extensive understanding of the steps for conducting and assessing systematic reviews in order to better estimate time commitments.

show abstract

“…On the question of how much time is required to complete a systematic review search, Gann and Pratt [9] showed that in over 17 "systematic review/meta-analysis" searches, the average time required for completion was 23 hours, whereas "systematic review update[s]" required an average of 6 hours. Saleh et al [10], studying 17 searchers, arrived at a similar conclusion of between 1.6 and 113 hours (mean 24.28 hours) to search all resources for a systematic review.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acknowledging Librarians’ Contributions to Systematic Review Searching

Desmeules

Campbell

Dorgan

2016

J Can Health Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract IntroductionAcademic health librarians are increasingly involved as members of research teams that conduct systematic reviews. Sometimes librarians are co-authors on the resulting publications, sometimes they are acknowledged, and sometimes they receive no recognition. This study was designed to query librarian supervisors’ understanding of the extent to which Canadian academic health librarians are involved in systematic reviews and the manner in which their work is recognized. MethodsA survey asking 21 questions was sent to supervisors of librarians at all 17 academic health sciences libraries in Canada, querying the extent and nature of librarians’ involvement in systematic review research projects and the forms of acknowledgement that they receive. ResultsFourteen responses to the survey were received. Results show strong expectations that librarians are involved, and will be involved, in systematic review research projects. Results related to the number of reviews undertaken, the amount of time required, the forms of acknowledgement received, and the professional value of systematic review searching varied greatly. DiscussionThe lack of consensus among academic health librarians’ supervisors regarding most aspects of librarians’ involvement in systematic review projects, and the ways in which this work is and should be acknowledged, points to the need for research on this subject.

show abstract

Using library search service metrics to demonstrate library value and manage workload

Cited by 14 publications

References 71 publications

Evaluation of a new method for librarian‐mediated literature searches for systematic reviews

Evaluation of a new method for librarian‐mediated literature searches for systematic reviews

Librarians’ Reported Systematic Review Completion Time Ranges Between 2 and 219 Total Hours with Most Variance due to Information Processing and Instruction

Acknowledging Librarians’ Contributions to Systematic Review Searching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About