Search

Objective – The project sought to examine the aspects of the question answering process in an evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) context by presenting the questions asked, articles selected, and checklists used by an opportunistic sample of Australian and New Zealand library and information professionals from multiple library and information sectors participating in the “Evidence Based Library and Information Practice: Delivering Services That Shine” (EBLIP-Gloss) FOLIOz e-learning course.Methods – The researchers analyzed the “ask,” “acquire,” and “appraise” tasks completed by twenty-nine library and information professionals working in Australia or New Zealand. Questions were categorized by EBLIP domain, articles were examined to identify any comparisons, and checklists were collated by frequency.Results – Questions fell within each of the six EBLIP domains, with management being the most common. Timeliness, relevance, and accessibility were stronger determinants of article selection than rigour or study design. Relevance, domain, and applicability were the key determinants in selecting a checklist.Conclusion – This small-scale study exemplifies the EBLIP process for a self-selecting group of library and information professionals working in Australia and New Zealand. It provides a snapshot of the types of questions that library and information practitioners ask, and the types of articles and checklists found to be useful. Participants demonstrated a preference for literature and checklists originating from within the library and information science (LIS) field, reinforcing the imperative for LIS professionals to contribute to EBLIP research.

Objectives – The purpose of this research project was to gain insight into the information behaviour of healthcare services managers as they use information while engaged in decision-making unrelated to individual patient care. Methods – This small-scale, exploratory, multiple case study used the critical incident technique in nineteen semi-structured interviews. Responses were analyzed using ‘Framework,’ a matrix-based content analysis system. Results – This paper presents findings related to the internal information that healthcare services managers need and use. Their decisions are influenced by a wide variety of factors. They must often make decisions without all of the information they would prefer to have. Internal information and practical experience set the context for new research-based information, so they are generally considered first.Conclusions – Healthcare services managers support decisions with both facts and value-based information. These results may inform both delivery of health library services delivery and strategic health information management planning. They may also support librarians who extend their skills beyond managing library collections and teaching published information retrieval skills, to managing internal and external information, teaching information literacy, and supporting information sharing.

Objective This paper reviews developments in the consolidation and diversification of the evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) paradigm since publication of the authors’ book Evidence Based Practice for Information Professionals: a Handbook in 2004.Methods The authors provide an updated narrative review of key themes in the development of evidence based librarianship within the context of the new consensual term ‘EBLIP.’ Sources for this thematic framework included professional literature, Internet searches, and the authors’ personal experiences.Results ‐ While considerable achievements have been realized within a three‐year period, most notably the instigation of the journal known as EBLIP, a broadening of the paradigm to other library sectors, and increased availability of implementation studies, many challenges remain. Of particular concern is the lack of international strategic foresight in determining rotation of the biennial international conferences and distribution of influential EBLIP infrastructures and initiatives.Conclusion ‐ While the enthusiasms and energies of individual practitioners and work teams have made considerable progress in meeting short‐term objectives, uncertainty remains concerning how longer‐term objectives requiring infrastructure and resources might be realized. From its faltering steps as a toddler EBLIP has developed to a ‘prepubescent’ stage with the promise of ‘growth spurts’ and ‘emotional crises.’ The next three years should prove both challenging and demanding.

Objective – To examine the impact of information on the clinical knowledge and practice of nurses, midwives and health visitors.Design – Two surveys: a one-page critical incident questionnaire survey sent weekly over four weeks, and a questionnaire attached to information requests and searches, followed up by interviews.Setting – UK health information providers serving nurses (national information providers, National Health Service trust libraries, higher education funded library and information services, and a health promotion library). Subjects – A random sample of 210 nurses, midwives and health visitors were targeted in the critical incident survey, and 776 of those requesting information or searches at participating library and information centres received questionnaires for the second survey.Methods – Opinion leaders were consulted to inform a pilot study. A critical incident type questionnaire survey was then administered to a random sample of 210 nurses, midwives and health visitors. The same one‐page questionnaire was sent weekly (for four weeks) to 10% of a randomly selected sample of staff at each site. Staff were asked to identify one occasion during that week when they needed information, the purpose of theinformation needed, the sources chosen to answer the query and how successful the quest was. The impact of the information provided by the library and information services on present and future professional practice was examined through a complementary survey. Responses were coded using three categories of competence: assessment, monitoring of care andevaluation of care. Follow‐up interviews then explored the nature of the incident described or the quality of information provided.Main results – The response rate for the critical incident survey was 52% (434 out of 840 completed questionnaires returned) with 78% (163/210) of participants replying at least once. The total response rate for the second survey was 40% (311/776). Ninety percent of respondents stated that the information they obtained from the library or information service added to their knowledge, and 86% had been able to use some information immediately. Sixty‐one percent reported that information had refreshed their memory, and 75% agreed that information substantiated what they had known or suspected. Seventy‐six percent of respondents agreed that they needed to obtain more information on the topic, while 23% had expected to find something else. Eighty‐eight percent of respondents indicated that they would share the information with colleagues. Ninety‐six percent of respondents agreed that the information obtained would contribute to future practice. Seventy percent felt that the information would or did help in evaluation of practice outcomes, 68% for improved quality of life for patient and/or family and 61% in interpersonal relations with clients/patients. Other majority responses were for Audit or standards of care (57%), Monitoring of care (56%) and Legal or ethical issues (51%). Base or ward sources were used in 72% of patient care related incidents and colleagues in 56% of these incidents. Of 148 incidents involving use of a library, the primary purposes were personal updating (62%), coursework (54%), patient care – specific drug or therapy (44%), and teaching staff, students or colleagues (39%).Conclusion – The findings demonstrate the value of information to nursing professionals while acknowledging that thelibrary is not necessarily a principal source of such information. Ward‐based resources and information from colleagues continue toplay a dominant part in information use. Rather than reducing uncertainty, the value of information may lie in encouraging uncertainty and reflective practice. Information professionals must seek a greater understanding of situations and methods of presentation by which they might encourage reflective practice.

Objective – The project sought to examine the aspects of the question answering process in an evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) context by presenting the questions asked, articles selected, and checklists used by an opportunistic sample of Australian and New Zealand library and information professionals from multiple library and information sectors participating in the “Evidence Based Library and Information Practice: Delivering Services That Shine” (EBLIP-Gloss) FOLIOz e-learning course. Methods – The researchers analyzed the “ask,” “acquire,” and “appraise” tasks completed by twenty-nine library and information professionals working in Australia or New Zealand. Questions were categorized by EBLIP domain, articles were examined to identify any comparisons, and checklists were collated by frequency. Results – Questions fell within each of the six EBLIP domains, with management being the most common. Timeliness, relevance, and accessibility were stronger determinants of article selection than rigour or study design. Relevance, domain, and applicability were the key determinants in selecting a checklist. Conclusion – This small-scale study exemplifies the EBLIP process for a self-selecting group of library and information professionals working in Australia and New Zealand. It provides a snapshot of the types of questions that library and information practitioners ask, and the types of articles and checklists found to be useful. Participants demonstrated a preference for literature and checklists originating from within the library and information science (LIS) field, reinforcing the imperative for LIS professionals to contribute to EBLIP research.

No abstract.

No abstract.

Andrew Booth, Co-Chair of the International Programme Committee for the 5th International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference introduces the keynotes from the event in Stockholm.

Andrew Booth provides a response to Ola Pilerot's EBLIP5 Keynote critiquing Evidence Based Library and Information Practice against a model of research use.

The authors look at the specific links between Evidence Based Library and Information Practice and the Customer Value Discovery methodology.

Objectives: To gain insight into the information behaviour of healthcare services managers as they draw on information while engaged in decision making unrelated to individual patient care. Objectives – The purpose of this research project was to gain insight into the information behaviour of healthcare services managers as they use information while engaged in decision-making unrelated to individual patient care. Methods – This small-scale, exploratory, multiple case study used the critical incident technique in nineteen semi-structured interviews. Responses were analyzed using ‘Framework,’ a matrix-based content analysis system. Results – This paper presents findings related to the internal information that healthcare services managers need and use. Their decisions are influenced by a wide variety of factors. They must often make decisions without all of the information they would prefer to have. Internal information and practical experience set the context for new research-based information, so they are generally considered first. Conclusions – Healthcare services managers support decisions with both facts and value-based information. These results may inform both delivery of health library services delivery and strategic health information management planning. They may also support librarians who extend their skills beyond managing library collections and teaching published information retrieval skills, to managing internal and external information, teaching information literacy, and supporting information sharing.

A review of: Urquhart, C., and R. Davies. ”EVINCE: The Value of Information in Developing Nursing Knowledge and Competence.” Health Libraries Review 14.2 (1997): 61-72. Objective – To examine the impact of information on the clinical knowledge and practice of nurses, midwives and health visitors. Design – Two surveys: a one-page critical incident questionnaire survey sent weekly over four weeks, and a questionnaire attached to information requests and searches, followed up by interviews. Setting – UK health information providers serving nurses (national information providers, National Health Service trust libraries, higher education funded library and information services, and a health promotion library). Subjects – A random sample of 210 nurses, midwives and health visitors were targeted in the critical incident survey, and 776 of those requesting information or searches at participating library and information centres received questionnaires for the second survey. Methods – Opinion leaders were consulted to inform a pilot study. A critical incident type questionnaire survey was then administered to a random sample of 210 nurses, midwives and health visitors. The same one-page questionnaire was sent weekly (for four weeks) to 10% of a randomly selected sample of staff at each site. Staff were asked to identify one occasion during that week when they needed information, the purpose of the information needed, the sources chosen to answer the query and how successful the quest was. The impact of the information provided by the library and information services on present and future professional practice was examined through a complementary survey. Responses were coded using three categories of competence: assessment, monitoring of care and evaluation of care. Follow-up interviews then explored the nature of the incident described or the quality of information provided. Main results – The response rate for the critical incident survey was 52% (434 out of 840 completed questionnaires returned) with 78% (163/210) of participants replying at least once. The total response rate for the second survey was 40% (311/776). Ninety percent of respondents stated that the information they obtained from the library or information service added to their knowledge, and 86% had been able to use some information immediately. Sixty-one percent reported that information had refreshed their memory, and 75% agreed that information substantiated what they had known or suspected. Seventy-six percent of respondents agreed that they needed to obtain more information on the topic, while 23% had expected to find something else. Eighty-eight percent of respondents indicated that they would share the information with colleagues. Ninety-six percent of respondents agreed that the information obtained would contribute to future practice. Seventy percent felt that the information would or did help in evaluation of practice outcomes, 68% for improved quality of life for patient and/or family and 61% in interpersonal relations with clients/patients. Other majority responses were for Audit or standards of care (57%), Monitoring of care (56%) and Legal or ethical issues (51%). Base or ward sources were used in 72% of patient care related incidents and colleagues in 56% of these incidents. Of 148 incidents involving use of a library, the primary purposes were personal updating (62%), coursework (54%), patient care – specific drug or therapy (44%), and teaching staff, students or colleagues (39%). Conclusion – The findings demonstrate the value of information to nursing professionals while acknowledging that the library is not necessarily a principal source of such information. Ward-based resources and information from colleagues continue to play a dominant part in information use. Rather than reducing uncertainty, the value of information may lie in encouraging uncertainty and reflective practice. Information professionals must seek a greater understanding of situations and methods of presentation by which they might encourage reflective practice.

Objective - This paper reviews developments in the consolidation and diversification of the evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) paradigm since publication of the authors’ book Evidence Based Practice for Information Professionals: a Handbook in 2004. Methods - The authors provide an updated narrative review of key themes in the development of evidence based librarianship within the context of the new consensual term ‘EBLIP.’ Sources for this thematic framework included professional literature, Internet searches, and the authors’ personal experiences. Results - While considerable achievements have been realized within a three-year period, most notably the instigation of the journal known as EBLIP, a broadening of the paradigm to other library sectors, and increased availability of implementation studies, many challenges remain. Of particular concern is the lack of international strategic foresight in determining rotation of the biennial international conferences and distribution of influential EBLIP infrastructures and initiatives. Conclusion - While the enthusiasms and energies of individual practitioners and work teams have made considerable progress in meeting short-term objectives, uncertainty remains concerning how longer-term objectives requiring infrastructure and resources might be realized. From its faltering steps as a toddler EBLIP has developed to a ‘pre-pubescent’ stage with the promise of ‘growth spurts’ and ‘emotional crises.’ The next three years should prove both challenging and demanding.

This commentary highlights two overwhelming barriers to EBLIP - one at the consumption end and the other at the production end of the evidence chain, namely that librarians are ‘unteachable’ and systematic reviews are ‘unreadable’. The author identifies two possible solutions to overcome these barriers; equipping librarians with self-efficacy and concentrating efforts on the investigation of real world problems through the production of Route maps for Evidence based problem Solving (“RESolve”). He proposes that these approaches will help in making librarians teachable and evidence syntheses readable.