Starting a Fee-Based Systematic Review Service

Support Staff Take an Essential Role in Research Services

The profound transformation of medical libraries over the last twenty years reflects the advancements in medical education and health care delivery, increased expectations of users, and accelerated evolution of technology. The Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library (CWML) used this opportunity to rethink how staffing could be redeployed to accommodate these new developments. After assessing processes, workflows, and individual responsibilities, library administration devised a novel team approach that would allow clerical & technical (C&T) staff to work across departmental lines to provide a broader variety of in-depth and frontline services. This paper will share how the C&T staff at the CWML developed a broader skill set, while providing library services to users in the rapidly changing field of medical education and health care services.

Examining the Reach and Impact of a Systematic Review Service

This case study describes the process librarians at a large research university used to evaluate a systematic review searching service. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched for studies with a local, health sciences author. Data on librarian involvement, search quality, and standards adherence were recorded. Results of the assessment indicate a gradual increase in librarian authorship or acknowledgement over time, a moderate improvement in adherence to reporting standards over time, and insight into which departments better adhere to standards. Ideas for improving the quality and reach of the service while ensuring sustainability are discussed.

Continuing education for systematic reviews: a prospective longitudinal assessment of a workshop for librarians

OBJECTIVE

This prospective, longitudinal study explored the impact of a continuing education class on librarians' knowledge levels about and professional involvement with systematic reviews. Barriers to systematic review participation and the presence of formal systematic review services in libraries were also measured.

METHODS

Participants completed web-based surveys at three points in time: pre-class, post-class, and six-months' follow-up. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics and survey questions. Linear mixed effects models assessed knowledge score changes over time.

RESULTS

Of 160 class attendees, 140 (88%) completed the pre-class survey. Of those 140, 123 (88%) completed the post-class survey, and 103 (74%) completed the follow-up survey. There was a significant increase (p<0.00001) from pre-class to post-class in knowledge test scores, and this increase was maintained at follow-up. At post-class, 69% or more of participants intended to promote peer review of searches, seek peer review of their searches, search for grey literature, read or follow published guidelines on conduct and documentation of systematic reviews, and ask for authorship on a systematic review. Among librarians who completed a systematic review between post-class and follow-up, 73% consulted published guidelines, 52% searched grey literature, 48% sought peer review, 57% asked for authorship, and 70% received authorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Attendance at this continuing education class was associated with positive changes in knowledge about systematic reviews and in librarians' systematic review-related professional practices. This suggests that in-depth professional development classes can help librarians develop skills that are needed to meet library patrons' changing service needs.

Building the Systematic Review Core in an academic health sciences library

BACKGROUND

The authors present efforts to build capacity at our institution for conducting systematic reviews and other forms of evidence synthesis through partnerships and a recharge model. This report describes how we successfully created and launched a for-fee systematic review core at our library.

CASE PRESENTATION

Throughout 2014 and 2015, library leadership proposed different models for getting institutional and financial support for librarians and staff to better support university researchers conducting systematic reviews. Though well received, initial requests for financial support were not funded. The executive director of the Health Sciences Library released two years' worth of salary and benefits to fund an evidence synthesis and retrieval librarian position. With this new position, the team formed a charge-back core facility in partnership with our university's Clinical Translation and Science Award hub. A series of procedural decisions and operational changes helped the group achieve success. Within eighteen months after launching the Systematic Review Core, we reached maximum capacity with more than twenty ongoing reviews.

DISCUSSION

Assigning a dollar value to our expertise put us on par with other subject matter experts on campus and actually drove demand. We could act as paid consultants in research projects and shifted the perception of librarians from service providers to research partners. Affiliating with our partners was key to our success and boosted our ability to strengthen our campus' research infrastructure.

Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services

BACKGROUND

Many health sciences librarians are noticing an increase in demand for systematic review support. Developing a strategic approach to supporting systematic review activities can address commonly reported barriers and challenges including time factors, methodological issues, and supporting student-led projects.

CASE PRESENTATION

This case report describes how a health sciences library at a mid-sized university developed and implemented a structured and defined systematic review service in order to build capacity for increased librarian support and to maximize librarians' time and expertise. The process also revealed underlying collaboration challenges related to student-led systematic reviews and research quality concerns that needed to be addressed. The steps for developing a formal service included defining the librarian's role and a library service model, building librarian expertise, developing documentation to guide librarians and patrons, piloting and revising the service model, marketing and promoting the service, and evaluating service usage.

CONCLUSIONS

The two-tiered service model developed for advisory consultation and collaboration provides a framework for supporting systematic review activities that other libraries can adapt to meet their own needs. Librarian autonomy in deciding whether to collaborate on reviews based on defined and explicit considerations was crucial for maximizing librarians' time and expertise and for promoting higher quality research. Monitoring service usage will be imperative for managing existing and future librarian workload. These data and tracking of research outputs from librarian collaborations may also be used to advocate for new librarian positions.

Implementation of a fee-based service model to university-affiliated researchers at the University of Alberta

Background

There is growing demand for specialized services in academic libraries, including supporting systematic reviews and measuring research impact.

Study Purpose

The John W. Scott Health Sciences Library implemented a fee-based pilot project for the Faculty of Nursing for one year to test a fee-based model for specialized services, to evaluate its sustainability and scalability for the longer term, and to assess the feasibility of extending this service model to other health sciences faculties.

Case Presentation

We describe the development and delivery of the fee-based service model. Through a team-based approach, we successfully provided specialized services including mediated literature searching, research support, and research impact analyses to the Faculty of Nursing.

Discussion

Despite some challenges in developing and implementing the fee-based service model, our pilot project demonstrated demand for fee-based specialized services in the health sciences and suggests potential for this unique service model to continue and expand.

Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers

To meet the current needs of researchers who perform systematic reviews in health care settings, libraries need to provide high-quality educational services for researchers as part of their systematic review services. A team of librarians with diverse skills is also important for ensuring the growth and sustainability of systematic review services. This commentary describes a new team-based systematic review service model that can transform systematic review services by providing a pathway for librarians to offer a comprehensive educational service for systematic review research in a variety of health sciences library settings.

It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks

INTRODUCTION

The authors examined the time that medical librarians spent on specific tasks for systematic reviews (SRs): interview process, search strategy development, search strategy translation, documentation, deliverables, search methodology writing, and instruction. We also investigated relationships among the time spent on SR tasks, years of experience, and number of completed SRs to gain a better understanding of the time spent on SR tasks from time, staffing, and project management perspectives.

METHODS

A confidential survey and study description were sent to medical library directors who were members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries as well as librarians serving members of the Association of American Medical Colleges or American Osteopathic Association.

RESULTS

Of the 185 participants, 143 (77%) had worked on an SR within the last 5 years. The number of SRs conducted by participants during their careers ranged from 1 to 500, with a median of 5. The major component of time spent was on search strategy development and translation. Average aggregated time for standard tasks was 26.9 hours, with a median of 18.5 hours. Task time was unrelated to the number of SRs but was positively correlated with years of SR experience.

CONCLUSION

The time required to conduct the librarian's discrete tasks in an SR varies substantially, and there are no standard time frames. Librarians with more SR experience spent more time on instruction and interviews; time spent on all other tasks varied widely. Librarians also can expect to spend a significant amount of their time on search strategy development, translation, and writing.