ArticleHealth information and libraries journal2022
Validation of a generic impact survey for use by health library services indicates the reliability of the questionnaire.
Article in Health information and libraries journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- When patrons "click" with the library's literature searches: using data from a novel link generation process to assess patron engagement with literature search results.The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association · 2026Article
- Enhancing Learning Health Systems in Primary and Community Care: Contributions of NHS Library and Knowledge Specialists.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of the Serious Educational Game in Nursing Appraisal Scale.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Online Survey to Investigate Asthma Medication Prescription and Adherence from the Perspective of Patients and Healthcare Practitioners in England [Letter].Journal of asthma and allergy · 2023Article
- Validation of a generic impact survey for use by health library services indicates the reliability of the questionnaire.Health information and libraries journal · 2022Article
- Spanish language version of the "Medical Quality Video Evaluation Tool" (MQ-VET): Cross-cultural AI-supported adaptation and validation study.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA validated generic impact questionnaire can demonstrate how individual and groups of health libraries contribute to continuing education and patient care outcomes.
objectivesTo validate an existing generic questionnaire for Knowledge for Healthcare, England by examining: (1) internal reliability; (2) content validity; and (3) suggest revisions.
methodsMethods used included Cronbach's alpha test, simple data mining of patterns among a data set of 187 questionnaire responses and checking respondents' interpretation of questions.
resultsCronbach's alpha was 0.776 (acceptable internal reliability). The patterns of responses indicated that respondents' interpretations of the questions were highly plausible, and consistent. The meaning of 'research' varied among different occupational groups, but overall, respondents could identify relevant personal and service impacts. However, users were confused about the terms that libraries use to describe some services. DISCUSSION: The analysis indicated that the questionnaire worked well for the two types of personal services (literature/evidence searches and training/e-learning) frequently cited on the responses. Further research may be required for library assessment of the impact of other services such as digital resource services.
conclusionsThe generic questionnaire is a reliable way of assessing the impact of health library and knowledge services, both individually and collectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.