Changing minds and methods: providing health sciences faculty with alternatives to systematic reviews assignments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2056Keywords:
Research instruction, graduate assignments, cognitive load theory, systematic review, health sciences, evidence synthesisAbstract
Background: Health sciences librarians frequently engage in discussions about the appropriate assignment of evidence synthesis reviews (ES) for graduate students as course, thesis, or capstone projects. Such reviews are often assigned to build the research skills needed in a clinical environment. In the assignment of these reviews, it has become apparent that health sciences faculty are often not familiar with required standardized methodologies. Incorrect methodologies can contribute to research waste and produce evidence that cannot be applied for its intended purpose.
Case Presentation: Health sciences librarians at an R1 institution ventured to address the ES review knowledge gap through a continuing education webinar for health sciences faculty and graduate students. The webinar provided guidance on systematic review (SR) methodology, optional alternative research assignments, and discussions encouraging the use of these assignments. The alternative assignments were developed based on those presented by Lipke & Price (2025), each with specific learning objectives and grading rubrics. Pre- and post-webinar surveys were conducted to gauge any changes in participants’ knowledge, skills, or abilities related to the presented information.
Conclusions: Study participants included six faculty and a graduate student. Survey results showed that participants had an improved understanding of, and placed increased importance on, ES method guidelines, with an equal understanding of the need for alternative assignments. The authors of this study will further evaluate the impact of this webinar and assess its effectiveness in changing health sciences research assignments.
References
1. Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, Helbach J, Hoffmann A, Mathes T, Pieper D. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021 Oct 1;138:1–11.
2. Uttley L, Quintana DS, Montgomery P, Carroll C, Page MJ, Falzon L, Sutton A, Moher D. The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2023 Apr 1;156:30–41.
3. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, Mayhew A, Skidmore B, Stevens A, Boutron I, Sarkis-Onofre R, Bjerre LM, Hróbjartsson A, Altman DG, Moher D. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Systematic Reviews. 2017 Jul 19;6(1):131.
4. Rethlefsen ML, Brigham TJ, Price C, Moher D, Bouter LM, Kirkham JJ, Schroter S, Zeegers MP. Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2024 Feb 1;166:111229.
5. Moore A. Red for danger in systematic reviews? Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2021 Nov 1;28(6):299–300.
6. Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Fraud or flawed: adverse impact of fabricated or poor quality research. Anaesthesia. 2010 Apr;65(4):327–30.
7. Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485–514.
8. Smith GD, Aveyard H, Jane N, Penny KI. Improving the conduct and reporting of meta‐analyses. Journal of Advanced Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc). 2023 Sep;79(9):3186–8.
9. Fontelo P, Liu F. A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries. Systematic Reviews. 2018 Sep 27;7(1):147.
10. Torres G, Ledbetter L, Cantrell S, Alomo ARL, Blodgett TJ, Bongar MV, Hatoum S, Hendren S, Loa R, Montaña S, Sumile E, Turner KM, Relf MV. Adherence to PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines and scope of systematic reviews published in nursing: A cross-sectional analysis. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2024 Mar 30;
11. Olsson C, Ringnér A, Borglin G. Including systematic reviews in PhD programmes and candidatures in nursing - “Hobson’s choice”? Nurse Educ Pract. 2014 Mar;14(2):102–5.
12. ten Ham-Baloyi W, Jordan P. Systematic review as a research method in post-graduate nursing education. Health SA Gesondheid. 2016 Dec 1;21:120–8.
13. Puljak L, Sapunar D. Acceptance of a systematic review as a thesis: survey of biomedical doctoral programs in Europe. Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 12;6(1):253.
14. Cañón-Montañez W, Rodríguez-Acelas AL. Contributions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to nursing education, research, and practice. Aquichan [Internet]. 2021 Dec [cited 2024 Feb 2];21(4). Available from: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1657-59972021000402143&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
15. Christian R, Palokas M. Systematic review methodology in graduate nursing education. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2018 Mar;16(3):587.
16. Dotto L, T. O. Lemes L, O. Spazzin A, Sousa YTCS, Pereira GKR, Bacchi A, Sarkis-Onofre R. Acceptance of systematic reviews as Master/PhD theses in Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. 2020;13(2):125–9.
17. Milner K, Zonsius M, Alexander C, Zellefrow C. Doctor of nursing practice project advisement: a roadmap for faculty and student success. Journal of Nursing Education. 2019 Dec;58(12):728–32.
18. Lesley ML. Facilitating students’ success with their own research projects. Nurse Educator. 2011 Jun;36(3):107.
19. Orta R, Messmer PR, Valdes GR, Turkel M, Fields SD, Wei CC. Knowledge and competency of nursing faculty regarding evidence-based practice. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 2016 Sep;47(9):409–19.
20. Muraraneza C, Mtshali N, Bvumbwe T. Challenges in postgraduate research supervision in nursing education: Integrative review. Nurse Education Today. 2020 Jun 1;89:104376.
21. Schnall R. National Institute of Health (NIH) funding patterns in Schools of Nursing: Who is funding nursing science research and who is conducting research at Schools of Nursing? Journal of Professional Nursing. 2020 Jan 1;36(1):34–41.
22. Sayers J, Lopez V, Howard PB, Escott P, Cleary M. The leadership role of nurse educators in mental health nursing. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2015;36(9):718–24.
23. Wissinger CL. Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process? Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2018 Apr 5;106(2):248–50.
24. Brooks SV, Bigelow S. Preparing students for research: faculty/librarian collaboration in a pre-doctoral physical therapy research course. Health Info Libr J. 2015 Dec;32(4):332–8.
25. Premji Z, Hayden KA, Rutherford S. Teaching Knowledge Synthesis Methodologies in a Higher Education Setting: A Scoping Review of Face-to-Face Instructional Programs. eblip. 2021;16(2):111–44.
26. Bradley-Ridout G, Parker R, Sikora L, Quaiattini A, Fuller K, Nevison M, Nekolaichuk E. Exploring librarians’ practices when teaching advanced searching for knowledge synthesis: results from an online survey. J Med Libr Assoc. 112(3):238–49.
27. Chiang B, McClurg C. How developing a point of need training tool for evidence synthesis can improve librarian support for researchers. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2024;41(2):205–10.
28. Burress T, Mann E, Neville T. Exploring data literacy via a librarian-faculty learning community: A case study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2020 Jan 1;46(1):102076.
29. Rethlefsen ML, Lackey MJ, Zhao S. Building capacity to encourage research reproducibility and #MakeResearchTrue. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):113–9.
30. Lipke L, Price C. Rethinking systematic review assignment design in graduate health science education from librarians’ perspectives. Hypothesis. 37(1).
31. Janke R, Rush KL, Miller K. Needs assessment of nurse researchers through a research lifecycle framework. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 20220701;110(3):306–15.
32. Price C. Systematic review as class assignments? [Internet]. Covidence. 2022 [cited 2023 Nov 8]. Available from: https://www.covidence.org/blog/elementor-2112/
33. Higgins JPT, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, Welch V, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4. 6.4. 2023.
34. Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis [Internet]. JBI; 2024 [cited 2023 Nov 20]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global
35. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;n71.
36. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 1;4(1):1.
37. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021 Dec;10(1):1–19.
38. JBI Critical Appraisal Tools | JBI [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 18]. Available from: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
39. CASP Checklists - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme [Internet]. CASP - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. [cited 2023 Nov 28]. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
40. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91–108.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Laura Lipke, Neyda Gilman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
