Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42889823›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2026

Beyond database training: reconceptualizing information literacy and reading competence as a shared cognitive architecture in medical education.

Mercedes Byrd, James K Martin, Alexis Karas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Mercedes Byrdbyrdm@rowan.edu, Instruction, Reference, & Research Support Librarian, Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine Health Sciences Library, Stratford, NJ.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7012-0775
James K Martinjamesm1@gwu.edu, STEM Educational Developer, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5780-8274
Alexis Karaskarasa16@rowan.edu, Library Specialist II, Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine Health Sciences Library, Stratford, NJ.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2984-3827

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical librarians have long observed that medical students who struggle with reading complex textbooks also demonstrate weak information literacy skills. For decades, these have been treated as separate problems requiring separate solutions-offering reading workshops and database training sessions with limited lasting impact. This commentary proposes a reconceptualization: textbook literacy and information literacy are not sequential competencies but rather parallel manifestations of the same underlying cognitive architecture. Drawing on research in medical education, cognitive psychology, and educational neuroscience, this commentary argues that both literacies depend on three interconnected cognitive capacities: metacognitive self-regulation, working memory management, and epistemic sophistication. Understanding this shared foundation has profound implications for how health sciences librarians design interventions, plan instruction, and position themselves as essential contributors to medical education. This commentary presents a framework and outlines practical implications for library instruction, assessment, and collaboration with medical educators.

Indexed as

CognitionEducation, MedicalInformation LiteracyLibrariansReadingHumansLibraries, Medicalcognitive load theoryepistemic developmenthealth sciences librarianshipInformation literacymedical educationmetacognition

Identifiers

PMID42889823
PMCPMC13670235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.