Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28377674›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2017

Evaluation of hospital staff's perceived quality of librarian-mediated literature searching services.

Sandra McKeown, Shauna-Lee Konrad, Jill McTavish, Erin Boyce

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Landscape of health sciences librarian-mediated search services.Health information and libraries journal · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sandra McKeown
Shauna-Lee Konrad
Jill McTavish
Erin Boyce

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe research evaluated the perceived quality of librarian-mediated literature searching services at one of Canada's largest acute care teaching hospitals for the purpose of continuous quality improvement and investigation of relationships between variables that can impact user satisfaction.

methodsAn online survey was constructed using evidence-based methodologies. A systematic sample of staff and physicians requesting literature searches at London Health Sciences Centre were invited to participate in the study over a one-year period. Data analyses included descriptive statistics of closed-ended questions and coding of open-ended questions.

resultsA range of staff including clinicians, researchers, educators, leaders, and analysts submitted a total of 137 surveys, representing a response rate of 71%. Staff requested literature searches for the following "primary" purposes: research or publication (34%), teaching or training (20%), informing a policy or standard practice (16%), patient care (15%), and "other" purposes (15%). While the majority of staff (76%) submitted search requests using methods of written communication, including email and search request forms, staff using methods of verbal communication, including face-to-face and telephone conversations, were significantly more likely to be extremely satisfied with the librarian's interpretation of the search request (

conclusionsOur results demonstrate the limitations of written communication in the context of librarian-mediated literature searching and suggest a multifaceted approach to quality improvement efforts.

Indexed as

Information Storage and RetrievalLibrariansPatient CareCanadaHospitals, TeachingHumansInterprofessional RelationsLibrary ServicesPhysiciansQuality ControlSearch Engine

Identifiers

PMID28377674
PMCPMC5370602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.