Search

Introduction: We hosted a national consensus conference with a diverse group of stakeholders to develop a patient-centered research agenda focused on reducing disparities in telehealth use. Methods: Attendees were purposively invited to participate in a 2-day virtual conference. The group developed a prioritized research agenda focused on reducing disparities in telehealth uptake, with discussion informed by findings from a scoping review. All work was conducted in partnership with a Steering Committee of national experts in telehealth and patient-centered care (n?=?5) and a community-based Telehealth Advisory Board with experience with telehealth use and barriers (n?=?8). Results: Sixty individuals participated in the conference and discussion resulted in a final list of 20 questions. Fifty-two attendees voted on the final prioritization of these questions. Results were aggregated for all voters (n?=?52) and patient-only voters (n?=?8). The top question identified by both groups focused on patient and family perspectives on important barriers to telehealth use. The entire group voting identified telehealth's impact on patient outcomes as the next most important questions, while the patient-only group identified trust-related considerations and cultural factors impacting telehealth use as next priorities. Conclusions: This project involved extensive patient and stakeholder engagement. While voting varied between patients only and the entire group of conference attendees, top identified priorities included patient and family perspectives on important barriers to telehealth, trust and cultural barriers and facilitators to telehealth, and assessment of telehealth's impact on patient outcomes. This research agenda can inform design of future research focused on addressing disparities in telehealth use.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: In a 2022 NASEM Report, “… successful inclusion of underrepresented populations in research is investing in diverse research teams to enhance congruence and to optimize recruitment and retention success.” Thus, academic research institutions must provide safe, respectful and inclusive work environments to support diverse research teams. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Resources, policies and protocols related to disruptive research participants have not been well articulated at our institution. Given this dearth of information, we launched a new initiative across our CTSA, IRB, Office of General Counsel and Department of Population Health. The multipronged approach includes: 1) Conduct a scoping review of published and gray literature to identify best practices, trainings and resources to mitigate discrimination, harassment of research team members; 2) Co-develop new institutional policies and procedures to ensure safety and respect for both research staff and participants; 3) Develop an online training on research team field and workplace safety; and 4) Widely disseminate policies and resources to address the overall gap in academic research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our ongoing scoping review has shown that here is an overall lack of information on bias, discrimination and harassment perpetrated by research participants towards research teams. Based on our activities, new Human Research Protection policies were launched. These include defining what disruptive participant behavior in research is, the introduction of a Statement on the Conduct of Participants in Research Studies, and steps study teams may implement to manage disruptive behavior initiated by a research participate. Next steps include the development of training resources for study teams on the new policies and to introduce de-escalation and situational awareness strategies and trainings. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: As research teams become increasingly diverse, there is a need to better support them and ensure that the research field and work settings are safe, inclusive environments with articulated policies that mitigate/prevent discrimination, bias and harassment perpetrated by study participants.

This protocol outlines a proposed scoping review to characterize evidence on implementation and quality improvement (QI) strategies that aim to improve equitable, evidence-informed care delivery for pregnant and birthing people with substance use disorder (SUD) in acute care. Untreated SUD during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of overdose and severe maternal morbidity. Acute care settings are one important place to deliver equitable, evidence-informed clinical care. While clinical practice guidelines for substance use treatment and care of pregnant and birthing people with SUD exist, there are gaps in implementation. Our population of interest is pregnant and birthing people with SUD in an acute care setting. We will include US-based studies that describe or evaluate implementation or QI strategies, including experimental, observational, and descriptive studies published from 2016 to 2023. The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews and registered at OSF (registration number: BC4VZ). We will search MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier), and APA PsychInfo (Ovid) for published studies. Conference proceedings and Perinatal Quality Collaborative websites will be searched for grey literature. Two reviewers will independently screen then extract studies that meet inclusion criteria using a data extraction tool. The completion of this scoping review will help illuminate strengths and gaps in research and practice that aim to inform substance use treatment and care in acute care settings for pregnant and birthing people with SUD.

BackgroundMeta-research in which researchers are the study subjects can illuminate how to better support researchers and enhance the development of research capacity. Comprehensively compiling the literature in this area can help define best practices for research capacity development and reveal gaps in the literature. However, there are challenges to assessing and synthesizing the breadth of the meta-research literature produced.MethodsIn this article, we discuss the current barriers to conducting literature reviews on meta-research and strategies to address these barriers. We then outline proposed methods for conducting a scoping review on meta-research with researchers as study subjects.DiscussionDue to its interdisciplinary nature, broad scope, and difficult to pinpoint terminology, little is known about the state of meta-research with researchers as the study subjects. For this reason, there is a need for a scoping review that will identify research performed in which researchers were the study subjects.

Meta-research is a bourgeoning field studying topics with significant relevance to health sciences librarianship, such as research reproducibility, peer review, and open access. As a discipline that studies research itself and the practices of researchers, meta-research spans disciplines and encompasses a broad spectrum of topics and methods. The breadth of meta-research presents a significant challenge for identifying published meta-research studies. Introducing a subject heading for meta-research in the controlled vocabularies of literature databases has the potential to increase the visibility of meta-research, further advance the field, and expand its impact on research practices. Given the relatively recent designation of meta-research as a field and its expanding use as a term, now is the time to develop appropriate indexing vocabulary. We seek to call attention to the value of meta-research for health sciences librarianship, describe the challenges of identifying meta-research literature with currently available key terms, and highlight the need to establish controlled vocabulary specific to meta-research.

Objective: Many health sciences librarians enter the profession without specific health sciences training. Some LIS programs have health sciences courses or tracks, but health sciences training within an LIS program is only one path to entering health sciences librarianship. To develop a map of pathways into health sciences librarianship, an immersion session at the Medical Library Association conference in 2022 asked health sciences librarians to share how they entered the profession. Methods: The immersion session was structured in three parts: facilitator introductions, small group discussions, and a whole group summary discussion. Guided by questions from the facilitators, small groups discussed what pathways currently exist, how to promote existing pathways, what new pathways should be created, and how to develop and promote pathways that make the profession more equitable, diverse, and inclusive. Results: Through in-the-moment thematic analysis of the small group discussions, the following emerged as key pathways: library school education; internships and practica; the Library and Information Science (LIS) pipeline; on-the-job training; mentoring; self-teaching/hands-on learning; and continuing education. Themes of equity, diversity, and inclusion arose throughout the session, especially in the concluding whole group discussion. Conclusion: Small group discussions in a conference immersion session showed the value of community building in a profession that has multiple pathways for entrance, highlighting the importance of unearthing hidden knowledge about avenues for exploring and enhancing career pathways. The article seeks to address barriers to entry into the profession and adds to the literature on strengthening the field of health sciences librarianship.

Introduction Research on effectively navigating older adults into primary care is urgently needed. Community–clinic linkage models (CCLMs) aim to improve population health by linking the health and community sectors in order to improve patients’ access to healthcare and, ultimately, population health. However, research on community-based points of entry linking adults with untreated medical needs into the healthcare sector is nascent. CCLMs implemented for the general adult population are not necessarily accessible to older adults. Given the recency of the CCLM literature and the seeming rarity of CCLM interventions designed for older adults, it is appropriate to employ scoping review methodology in order to generate a comprehensive review of the available information on this topic. This protocol will inform a scoping review that reviews characteristics of community-based programmes that link older adults with the healthcare sector.Methods and analysis The present protocol was developed as per JBI Evidence Synthesis best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. The proposed scoping review will follow Levac and colleagues’ update to Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology. Healthcare access at the system and individual levels will be operationalised in data extraction and analysis in accordance with Levesque and colleagues’ Conceptual Framework of Access to Health. The protocol complies with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Beginning in August 2023 or later, citation databases (AgeLine (Ebsco); CINAHL Complete; MEDLINE (PubMed); Scopus Advanced (Elsevier); Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest); Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate)) and grey literature (Google; American Public Health Association Annual Meeting Conference Proceedings; SIREN Evidence & Resource Library) will be searched.Ethics and dissemination The authors plan to disseminate their findings in conference proceedings and publication in a peer-reviewed journal and deposit extracted data in the Figshare depository. The study does not require Institutional Review Board approval.Registration details Protocol registered in Open Science Framework (DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2EF9D).

Introduction Glycaemic variability and other metrics are not well characterised in subjects without diabetes. More comprehensive sampling as obtained with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may improve diagnostic accuracy of the transition from health to pre-diabetes. Our goal is to investigate the glycaemic system as it shifts from health to pre-disease in adult patients without diabetes using CGM metrics. New insights may offer therapeutic promise for reversing dysglycaemia more successfully with dietary, nutritional and lifestyle change before progression occurs to pre-diabetes and diabetes.Methods and analysis This systematic review will include comprehensive searches of the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, with restrictions set to studies published in the last 10 years in English and planned search date 10 March 2022. Reference lists of studies that meet eligibility criteria in the screening process will subsequently be screened for the potential inclusion of additional studies. We will include studies that examine CGM use and report diagnostic criteria such as fasting glucose and/or haemoglobin A1c such that we can assess correlation between CGM metrics and established diagnostic criteria and describe how CGM metrics are altered in the transition from health to pre-diabetes. The screening and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers using Covidence. All included papers will also be evaluated for quality and publication bias using Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tools. If there are two or more studies with quantitative estimates that can be combined, we will conduct a meta-analysis after assessing heterogeneity.Ethics and dissemination The systematic review methodology does not require formal ethical review due to the nature of the study design. Study findings will be publicly available and published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022308222.

Traditionally, health sciences libraries have supported patrons who are preparing for medical licensure examinations by collecting and making accessible board exam preparation resources, such as questions banks and study guides. However, when online board exam preparation resources are not available for licensing, providing equitable access to all library users can be a challenge. In recent years, a new generation of online study resources has emerged. Sites such as SketchyMedical and Picmonic use visual learning mnemonics, while resources such as Quizlet leverage crowd-sourcing to generate study content. While some of the content from these resources is made freely available, these resources are often limited to paid individual subscribers. This new generation of study resources, thus, presents a conundrum for health sciences librarians. On the one hand, these innovative resources offer new insights into how students learn and study, reflecting pedagogical trends in self-directed learning. On the other hand, the proprietary individual subscription-based model of these resources can widen the achievement gap between students who can afford to pay subscription costs and those who cannot. This commentary provides an overview of some of the most popular medical board examination preparation resources that have emerged in recent years. The authors suggest that health sciences librarians collaborate with medical students and educators to better understand and evaluate these resources.

Students in STEM and the health sciences have unique learning needs, including preparation for exams required for entering a STEM or health sciences profession. Students in these areas thus often seek, in addition to or instead of traditional course materials and library resources, digital study tools that utilize techniques such as spaced repetition. However, such tools are often sold as individual subscriptions that may be prohibitively expensive. The article outlines four approaches libraries may consider to help make digital study tools in STEM and the health sciences more equitable and affordable: assess, adopt, adapt, and create.