Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services
Keywords:Systematic Reviews, Case Study, Librarian Collaboration, Library Services, Research Support, Health Sciences Librarians
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.
Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature. 2018 Mar 7;555(7695):175–82.
Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485–514.
Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):46–56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82.
Roth SC. Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Oct;106(4):514–20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.430.
Hardi AC, Fowler SA. Evidence-based medicine and systematic review services at Becker Medical Library. Mo Med. 2014 Sep–Oct;111(5):416–8.
Ludeman E, Downton K, Shipper AG, Fu Y. Developing a library systematic review service: a case study. Med Ref Serv Q. 2015;34(2):173–80.
Knehans A, Dell E, Robinson C. Starting a fee-based systematic review service. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016 Jul–Sep;35(3):266–73.
Gore GC, Jones J. Systematic reviews and librarians: a primer for managers. Partnersh Can J Libr Inf Pract Res. 2015;10(1):1–16.
Campbell S, Dorgan M. What to do when everyone wants you to collaborate: managing the demand for library support in systematic review searching. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2015;36(1):11–9.
Nicholson J, McCrillis A, Williams JD. Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Oct;105(4):385–93. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.176.
Murphy SA, Boden C. Benchmarking participation of Canadian university health sciences librarians in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Apr;103(2):73–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.2.003.
Hanneke R. The hidden benefit of helping students with systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Apr;106(2):244–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.420.
Wissinger CL. Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process? J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Apr;106(2):248–50. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.387.
Queen’s University. Strategic framework 2014–2019 [Internet]. Kingston, ON: The University; 2014 [cited 17 May 2019]. <http://www.queensu.ca/sites/default/files/assets/pages/strategicframework/Queen%27s University Strategic Framework 2014-2019_0.pdf>.
Queen’s University Library. Strategic priorities 2015–16 to 2017–18 [Internet]. Kingston, ON: The University [cited 17 May 2019]. <https://library.queensu.ca/sites/default/files/2015-16_to_2017-18_strategic_priorities.pdf>.
Queen’s University. Quick facts [Internet]. The University [cited 4 May 2018]. <https://www.queensu.ca/about/quickfacts>.
Reznick RK. Faculty of health sciences dean’s report 2016–2017 [Internet]. Kingston, ON: The University; 2017 [cited]. <https://healthsci.queensu.ca/source/Deans_Report_2016_2017_FINAL.pdf>.
Janke R, Rush KL. The academic librarian as co-investigator on an interprofessional primary research team: a case study. Health Inf Libr J. 2014 Jun;31(2):116–22.
Beverley CA, Booth A, Bath PA. The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. Health Inf Libr J. 2003 Jun;20(2):65–74.
Harris MR. The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):81–7.
Swinkels A, Briddon J, Hall J. Two physiotherapists, one librarian and a systematic literature review: collaboration in action. Health Inf Libr J. 2006 Dec;23(4):248–56.
Jewell S, Gibson DS. Nine steps to a systematic review service [hospital librarianship]. MLA News. 2014 Feb;54(2):11.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors [Internet]. The Committee; 2018 [cited 17 May 2018]. <http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html>.
McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40–6.
Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 22;4:183.
Yaffe J, Montgomery P, Hopewell S, Shepard LD. Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36626.
Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One. 2015 May 4;10(5):1–13.
Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):267–77. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2016.139.
Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):617–26.
Swab M, Farrell A. Involvement of librarians and information specialists in published network meta-analyses. Presented at: CHLA/ABSC ’17, the 41st Annual Conference of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada [Internet]. Edmonton, AB, Canada; 2017 [cited 7 Jan 2019]. <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84318884.pdf>.
Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA. 2014 Sep 10;312(10):999–1000.
Kirtley S. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: librarians are listening and are part of the answer. Lancet. 2016 Apr 16;387(10028):1601. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30241-0.