MACMLA 2016: Paper Session 1

Building a Critical Mass of Systematic Review Authors and Teachers: A Collaboration between Librarians and Faculty

  • What is the rate of systematic reviews for comparable institutions (those without med schools)?
  • Need to meet with Deans, Directors, Faculty to determine needs
  • Work with researchers on currently publishing SRs & MAs
  • Interest in non-HS programs like Educational Technology, Psychology/Counseling, Statistics, & College of Liberal Arts (ex: Health Care Ethics)
  • Grant from NNLM for on-campus event for training on SRs
  • Created LibGuide and online community for on-going support (basic focus but decent guide usage even before official launch)
  • Speakers were a combination of experts and local researchers
  • Workshop topics
    • Importance of SRs, process
    • Breakout sessions on meta-analysis, integrating EBP into teaching
    • Panel discussion on opportunities and barriers
  • Librarian training
    • 3 options: UofMichigan workshop, Pitt program, applied project for university conference
  • Workshop attendance filled in days (n=27)
  • SRs in Education
    • class presentation, UG research symposium, critically appraised topics, IPE Health Research Skills course

Assessing Value of Library Services on Research, Clinical Practice, Education, and Administration

  • Had done Library Values survey 5 years prior
  • Benefits of informationists services (overall results, but different audiences have different rates per category)
    • information search (56%)
    • point of use instruction (19%)
    • citation management (9%)
    • publication/grant prep (4%)
  • students rank coursework as the highest indicator for intended use of library resources
  • What resources people used with and without informationists
    • with Informationists, more likely to use more resources, and resources like CINAHL, Embase, etc
    • without, more likely to use Google or Dynamed

MEDLIB 2011-2016

  • 5 year analysis of content and comparison with 1997 article analysis
  • as of 2016, MEDLIB-L has ~2000 subscribers (35% education domains, 23% healthcare orgs/hospitals)

One systematic review software to rule them all — NOT!

  • EndNote web works terribly for researchers across different institutions
  • Mendeley sinks beautifully across users but does not have as much space for PDF space (without payment)
  • RefWorks crashed with large RIS file due to timeout
  • SRAssistant deduplication – unsure how well it works
  • **checkout expert searching listserv
  • RefMan only available to Cochrane reviewers
  • SRDR wonderful but clunky due to framing
  • Covidence – can’t have more than 1 person assigned to an article; after 2nd reviewer, then the article moves out of the pool of review

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s