Search

The Medical Library Association’s (MLA’s) 2007 research policy statement [1] charged the MLA Research Section with defining the MLA research agenda on a recurring basis [2]. In 2008, the MLA Research Section’s Research Agenda Committee used a group consensus technique known as the Delphi method that involved both researchers and leaders to articulate MLA’s twelve highest priority research questions. The MLA Board adopted these twelve questions as the 2008 MLA research agenda. A subsequent article reporting these top twelve questions includes detailed description of the committee’s research methodology [3]. Following several months of deliberation and in consultation with the MLA Board of Directors, the MLA Research Section’s Executive Committee directed the Research Agenda Committee to conduct a new study during 2011, implementing the adaptations recommended in the previous report [4], while upgrading the methodology to improve the answerability of the questions. Although only a few years had passed, it also seemed possible that rapid technological changes and emerging societal conditions would produce a different set of top-ranked research questions. These deliberations led to important changes from the 2008 Delphi study. The 2008 study had generated two questions that were so lengthy and sprawling in their subject coverage that they would have been nearly impossible to answer, requiring that the authors strictly enforce a sixty-word limit during 2011. While the 2008 study had merged the MLA leaders and all members of the MLA Research Section into a single study population, the authors decided against including all Research Section members during 2011, because Research Section membership might reflect support for the research endeavor or a desire to learn more about research rather than actual research experience. Those Research Section members with research experience would be difficult to identify easily. A year after the 2008 study, the authors coincidentally learned of a concurrent 2008 Delphi method process that a team of Swedish researchers implemented for defining the research agenda for all Swedish librarians [5]. The authors otherwise know of no other Delphi method studies on defining a research agenda in librarianship, although, as indicated in the 2008 study report [3], this method has been used by other professions to define their research agendas.

Using a group consensus methodology, the research sought to generate a list of the twelve to fifteen most important and answerable research questions in health sciences librarianship as part of a broader effort to implement the new Medical Library Association (MLA) research policy.The delphi method was used. The committee distributed a brief survey to all estimated 827 MLA leaders and 237 MLA Research Section members, requesting they submit what they considered to be the most important and answerable research questions facing the profession. The submitted questions were then subjected to 2 rounds of voting to produce a short list of top-ranked questions.The survey produced 62 questions from 54 MLA leaders and MLA Research Section members, who responded from an estimated potential population of 1,064 targeted colleagues. These questions were considered by the process participants to be the most important and answerable research questions facing the profession. Through 2 rounds of voting, these 62 questions were reduced to the final 12 highest priority questions.The modified delphi method accomplished its desired survey and consensus goals. Future survey and consensus processes will be revised to generate more initial questions and to distill a larger number of ranked prioritized research questions.

A usability study was conducted at a medium-sized academic health sciences library with the goal of providing data to inform the future redesign of the library's Web page. A two-stage approach was used: (1) A preliminary survey designed to identify common tasks and issues on which to focus, and (2) usability testing. Responses to the survey indicated general satisfaction with the site and suggested areas for testing. Usability testing participants were asked to perform scripted tasks. The results indicate that users do have considerable difficulty navigating the site and recommendations are presented. This method of testing is recommended for health sciences libraries.

No abstract.

Our profession could very well become a model for other professions wishing to become more evidence based. At this moment, autonomous teams of our colleagues are conducting systematic reviews to address the fifteen top-ranked research questions in the current Medical Library Association (MLA) research agenda 1. These systematic review teams include mostly US members, although a third of the teams' members hail from other nations such as Australia, Canada, Iran, Ireland, Qatar, and the United Kingdom. Readers probably know one or more members of these teams. Most of these groups have been working in relative obscurity. That is, until now. Several other professions have defined their research agendas 2–4. Researchers representing the health professions and a wide range of other professions as diverse as the behavioral, social, policy, environmental, and management sciences have also conducted systematic reviews 5–14. To the authors' knowledge, however, only our profession has linked these two discrete activities coherently into a potentially potent strategy. This linkage could draw attention to our profession as an innovative leader in evidence-based practice. We predict that other professions likely will want to adapt our approach to address the needs of their own respective memberships. Each systematic review team has refined its focused research question at this time and is at a different stage of completion of the respective systematic reviews. Recently, one team published its findings in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA) 15. Some teams reported on their progress at the MLA 2014 annual meeting 16–18. Other teams are still closer to the formative stages of their reviews. Constituting the MLA Research Section's Research Agenda Committee, we have developed general guidelines for forming and managing the teams 19. When necessary, or as requested, we have provided guidance on conducting the systematic reviews. Table 1 (online only) lists the subject areas of the reviews, team leaders' names, and team leaders' contact information. Background This systematic review initiative traces its origins to the renewal of the MLA research policy by leaders in our profession 20. The 2007 MLA research policy, The Research Imperative, set bold directions for our profession's generation and use of applied research for making decisions. Two recommendations, appearing in the first section of the action plan for the policy, catalyzed a process that has now led to the systematic review initiative. These recommendations are that MLA will: ▪ Ask the MLA Research Section to create a forum for identifying research priorities in the field. ▪ Ask the Research Section to recommend annually to the MLA Board of Directors an MLA research agenda that suggests research topics of highest priority to the association 21. The first MLA research agenda, which appeared during 2009, offered twelve key research questions 22. The MLA Research Section asked the authors to conduct a second delphi study during 2011 to identify new top-ranked research questions 1. The authors thought that these fifteen new questions needed to be addressed with systematic reviews. They developed a process that would allow them to coordinate the formation and monitor the progress of the fifteen teams aligned to each of the fifteen questions 19. The authors decided to grant near-complete autonomy to the teams. This autonomy, coupled to the authors' encouragement that teams manage themselves with relatively flat organizational structures, seemed to enable the teams to conduct the systematic reviews in ways that the teams thought to be most appropriate. The authors expect that, over the coming year, most of the teams will submit their systematic reviews for publication. This initiative will help populate a growing list of nearly fifty systematic reviews affecting our profession 23. As most Journal of the Medical Library Association readers know, systematic reviews represent potentially the highest form of evidence in evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) 24, 25. What you can do There are three arenas in your practice where you can act upon this information: individual, institutional, and professional association. Individual On the individual level, you can model EBLIP by using systematic reviews to make important decisions. When systematic reviews are not available, you can still use the highest forms of evidence such as a randomized controlled trial or cohort study. You also can encourage colleagues who are conducting systematic reviews by thanking them for their efforts. Most importantly, you can identify vital questions that remain unanswered, formulate effective EBLIP questions 26, and alert colleagues about these gaps. Whenever possible, you should urge MLA leaders to contribute questions for future MLA research agenda formulation processes. Institutional Groups of colleagues making joint decisions on important matters can use systematic reviews or other forms of high-level evidence. We can identify and discuss gaps in the existing evidence base and alert our colleagues to these gaps. Whenever possible, we can encourage MLA leaders to contribute questions for future MLA research agenda formulation processes. Institutionally, we can create incentives for interested colleagues to join teams conducting systematic reviews through granting research leave. We also can encourage agencies to fund systematic review teams through grants or contracts. Professional association As a profession, we can encourage the pursuit of systematic reviews by creating incentives through grants, contracts, awards, or other recognitions for team members. We can encourage MLA leaders to submit what they view to be the most important research questions and to vote on others' worthy questions. We can encourage published researchers to lend their expertise in gauging the answerability of leaders' research questions. The authors will host a session on this systematic review project during the first section program at MLA ’15 in Austin, Texas. We invite you to attend this session to learn more about this innovative project, introduce your own ideas, and raise any questions.

The delivery of essential public health services depends on the effective use of relevant information by public health employees [1, 2]. Yet, despite the importance of information to the practice of public health, the complex information needs of the public health workforce are not well met [3–8]. This paper describes how the New York Medical College Health Sciences Library and School of Public Health (NYMC) and the New York Academy of Medicine (NYAM) successfully collaborated in collecting data for two separate projects that addressed the information needs of employees in the Dutchess County Department of Health (DCDOH) in New York's Hudson Valley. NYAM additionally partnered with researchers at Columbia University in the Department of Biomedical Informatics and School of Nursing. Each project required all DCDOH employees to fill out a lengthy survey, and some data elements were common to both surveys. Both projects were funded by the National Network of Libraries of Medicine with the charge that the projects “collaborate when appropriate” because they targeted the same population. DCDOH welcomed the collaboration because it reduced the response burden for its employees.

A mobile site redesign was conducted at a medium-sized academic health sciences library with the goal of creating a site that meets the mobile information needs of its users. The redesign phases included (1) needs assessment, (2) usability testing, and (3) site design. The survey results showed that Apple devices were the most prevalent; the most desirable activities performed on a mobile site were searching for articles, accessing full-text articles and e-books, searching databases, and searching the catalog. These activities guided the development of the usability testing tasks and the redesign. All phases were completed within six months, and the total project cost was $50 for incentive purchases.

Information technology has the capability to improve the way public health is practiced. Realization of this potential is possible only with a workforce ready to utilize these technologies. This project team assessed informatics competencies of employees in two county departments of health. The goal was to determine the status quo in terms of informatics competencies by surveying current levels of proficiency and relevance, and identify areas of needed training. A survey was adapted from the recommendations of a Working Group document by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and administered to all employees in the two health departments. Respondents evaluated proficiency and relevance for each of 26 recommended competencies. A gap score was generated between these two measures; results were compared to the recommendations of the Working Group. The following data for each job level are presented: mean gap scores by competency class; the percentage of respondents demonstrating a gap in the competencies reported to be most relevant; and the percentage of respondents meeting the target recommendations of the Working Group. The percentage of respondents who reached the targets was low in higher-level staff. And overall, employees reported low levels of relevance for most of the competencies. The average public health employee does not feel that prescribed informatics competencies are relevant to their work. Before the public health system can take advantage of information technology, relevant employee skills should be identified or developed. There needs to be a shift in thinking that will recognize the promise of information technology in everyday work.

This paper imparts the experiences of two similar but un-affiliated medical libraries that use QuestionPoint, OCLC'S collaborative virtual reference product. The authors introduce the major features of QuestionPoint, with particular emphasis on its asynchronous e-mail reference service. After presenting how both libraries have employed this service in their respective environments, the paper examines the quantity and quality of reference questions submitted via QuestionPoint. The types of questions are explicated, and statistical trends are compared