The Disappearing Medical Library: http://feedly.com/e/JDHy0jc-
Archive for the ‘Evaluation’ Category
Presenter: Lydia Collins, Consumer Health Coordinator, NN/LM MAR
Date / Time: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / 11 am – 12:30 pm (ET)
Summary: This session designed specifically for public library staff will provide an overview of the grant and funding processes as well as the level of detail required in a successful proposal. Registration priority will be given to NN/LM members in NY, NJ, PA and DE.
In our health information outreach work we are expected to provide evidence of the value of our work, but there are varying definitions of the word “evidence.” The classical evidence-based medicine approach (featuring results from randomized controlled clinical trials) is a model that is not always relevant in our work. At the 2013 EBLIP7 meeting in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, Denise Kaufogiannakis presented a keynote address that is now available as an open-access article on the web:
This article looks at various interpretations of what it means to provide “evidence” such as theoretical (ideas, concepts and models to explain how and why something works), empirical (measuring outcomes and effectiveness via empirical research), and experiential (people’s experiences with an intervention).
Kaufogiannakis points out that academic librarians’ decisions are usually made in groups of people working together and she proposes a new model for evidence-based library and information practice:
1) Articulate – come to an understanding of the problem and articulate it. Set boundaries and clearly articulate a problem that requires a decision.
2) Assemble – assemble evidence from multiple sources that are most appropriate to the problem at hand. Gather evidence from appropriate sources.
3) Assess – place the evidence against all components of the wider overarching problem. Assess the evidence for its quantity and quality. Evaluate and weigh evidence sources. Determine what the evidence says as a whole.
4) Agree – determine the best way forward and if working with a group, try to achieve consensus based on the evidence and organizational goals. Determine a course of action and begin implementation of the decision.
5) Adapt – revisit goals and needs. Reflect on the success of the implementation. Evaluate the decision and how it has worked in practice. Reflect on your role and actions. Discuss the situation
with others and determine any changes required.
Kaufogiannakis concludes by reminding us that “Ultimately, evidence, in its many forms, helps us find answers. However, we can’t just accept evidence at face value. We need to better understand evidence – otherwise we don’t really know what ‘proof’ the various pieces of evidence provide.
Teaching Research Data Management: Introducing the New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum (Boost Box session)Friday, December 6th, 2013
Presenter: Elaine R. Martin, Director, Lamar Soutter Library and Director, NN/LM New England Region, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA
Date / Time: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 / Noon – 1 pm (ET)
Where: Online / No Registration Required
Summary: The New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum (MECDMC) offers openly available materials that librarians can use to teach research data management best practices to students in the sciences, health sciences and engineering fields, at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The materials in the curriculum are openly available, with lecture notes and slide presentations that librarians teaching RDM can customize for their particular audiences. The curriculum also has a database of real life teaching research cases that can be integrated into the curriculum to address discipline specific data management topics.
This webinar will introduce attendees to the curriculum and the issues surrounding teaching research data management. Some libraries in New England have agreed to pilot the curriculum and we are looking for additional pilot sites outside our region. Attendees will be encouraged to review the curriculum and consider joining the collaboration by piloting the curriculum and participating in an evaluation process, which will be explained further during the webinar.
A study released today suggests that hospitals, government departments, associations and other organisations involved in healthcare gain a $9 return for every dollar they invest in health libraries.
Health Libraries Inc (HLInc) and Health Libraries Australia (ALIA HLA, a national group of the Australian Library and Information Association) commissioned award-winning firm SGS Economics and Planning to survey health libraries across the nation and from this to assess the return on the annual investment in these services to their organisations.
The results provide a snapshot of the continued outstanding value of health libraries against a backdrop of significantly greater usage but declining investment. Patient and medical staff numbers and hospital expenditure are increasing, while health library budgets, space and staffing levels are decreasing. HLInc chair Jane Edwards and ALIA HLA convener Ann Ritchie said, “The investment in library and information services is small in the scheme of things just 0.1% of recurrent expenditure in Australian hospitals. The report suggests that a modest increase in spending would allow for significant incremental benefits.”
The indicative finding of $9 for every $1 invested is likely to be even higher. SGS assessed the benefits provided directly to health library users, including time saved and value of “out-of-pocket” expenses such as journal subscriptions. However, the user focus of the study omitted the return on investment in terms of patient care, and SGS said “it is highly likely that the benefits of industry libraries outweigh their costs considerably.”
This economic value assessment supports the findings of the ALIA/HLInc Questions of Life and Death, an investigation into the value of health library and information services report, published last year. Library and information service users were asked how they believed their use of the service over the last year had helped them 83% said it had helped them improve health outcomes for their patients and 76%//said it had changed their thinking and improved their diagnosis or treatment plan.
The full report Worth every cent and more: an independent assessment of the return on investment of health libraries in Australia with supporting materials: http://www.alia.org.au/news/2124/australian-health-libraries-return-investment
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1002%2Fasi.23101 (subscription required)
Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012.
The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.
Provide feedback on the Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals (Core Competencies; http://www.phf.org/programs/corecompetencies) and help shape the future of the public health workforce. The Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice (Council on Linkages; http://www.phf.org/programs/council) is currently reviewing and revising the Core Competencies to ensure that these competencies keep pace with changes in the field of public health and continue to reflect the skills needed by public health professionals. As part of this process, the Council on Linkages is seeking feedback from the public health community. Multiple opportunities to provide feedback exist, including through an online feedback form (http://www.phf.org/competenciesfeedback). Feedback will be accepted through December 2013. To learn more about the review and revision process and other ways to provide feedback, please visit the Core Competencies review and revision process webpage (http://www.phf.org/competencies)
Kathleen Amos, MLIS
Project Manager, Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice
Public Health Foundation
1300 L St NW, Ste 800
Washington, DC 20005
The latest issue of the Journal of eScience Librarianship (JESLIB) has just been published! It is available at http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/vol2/iss2/.
Table of Contents
Volume 2, Issue 2 (2013)
Re-thinking Our Professional Identity in Light of New Responsibilities / Elaine R. Martin
Common Errors in Ecological Data Sharing / Karina E. Kervin, William K. Michener, and Robert B. Cook
Opportunities and Barriers for Librarians in Exploring Data: Observations from the Data Curation Profile Workshops / Jake R. Carlson
The Political Economy of Federally Sponsored Data / Bart Ragon
E-Science in Action
Gathering Feedback from Early-Career Faculty: Speaking with and Surveying Agricultural Faculty Members about Research Data / Sarah C. Williams
Building an eScience Thesaurus for Librarians: A Collaboration Between the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region and an Associate Fellow at the National Library of Medicine / Kevin Read, Andrew T. Creamer, Donna Kafel, Robert J. Vander Hart, and Elaine R. Martin
Thoughts on “eResearch”: a Scientist’s Perspective / Amanda L. Whitmire
Are you interested in submitting to JESLIB? Please refer to author guidelines at http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/styleguide.html
Elaine R. Martin, Editor, and the Editorial Team Journal of eScience Librarianship
Check out the Fall 2013 issue of our newsletter, The MAReport: http://nnlm.gov/mar/newsletter/.
- Library Collaboration and Advocacy / Barbara Epstein
- Update on NN/LM National Outreach Initiatives / Renae Barger
- Member Spotlight: Providing Advocacy and Education for the Behavioral Health Needs of Older Pennsylvanians / Rebecca May-Cole
- MAR Announces the 2013 National Medical Librarians Award / Pinnacle Health System
- Training First Responders on the Use of NLM Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Information Mobile Applications / Michelle Burda
- Health & Wellness: Not Just @ Your Library / Lydia Collins
- ClinicalTrials.gov: A Resource for Patients, Clinicians, Researchers and Librarians / Kate Flewelling
- What is PubMed Health and Why Would I Ever Use it? / Missy Harvey
NOTE: We encourage you to subscribe so MAReport will be delivered to your inbox.