Cargando…

Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarian...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Toews, Lorraine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medical Library Association 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6774563/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31607807
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.710
_version_ 1783456101289689088
author Toews, Lorraine
author_facet Toews, Lorraine
author_sort Toews, Lorraine
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarians have in conducting SRs, to identify barriers to their participation in SRs, and to identify other types of literature reviews that veterinary librarians participate in. METHODS: Sixty veterinary librarians in universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand were surveyed online about their roles and training in conducting SRs, barriers to participation in SRs, and participation in other types of literature reviews. RESULTS: Veterinary librarians’ highest participation was at an advising level in traditional librarian roles as question formulator, database selector, search strategy developer, and reference manager. Most respondents reported pretty good to extensive training in traditional roles and no or some training in less traditional roles. Sixty percent of respondents received few or no requests to participate in SRs, and only half of respondents had participated in SRs as a review team member. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their libraries had no policies regarding librarian roles and participation in SRs. CONCLUSIONS: The surveyed veterinary librarians participated in SRs to a lesser degree than human health sciences librarians, experienced low demand from veterinary faculty and students to participate in SRs, and participated as review team members at significantly lower rates than human health sciences librarians. The main barriers to participation in SRs were lack of library policies, insufficient training, and lack of time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6774563
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Medical Library Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67745632019-10-11 Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews Toews, Lorraine J Med Libr Assoc Original Investigation OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarians have in conducting SRs, to identify barriers to their participation in SRs, and to identify other types of literature reviews that veterinary librarians participate in. METHODS: Sixty veterinary librarians in universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand were surveyed online about their roles and training in conducting SRs, barriers to participation in SRs, and participation in other types of literature reviews. RESULTS: Veterinary librarians’ highest participation was at an advising level in traditional librarian roles as question formulator, database selector, search strategy developer, and reference manager. Most respondents reported pretty good to extensive training in traditional roles and no or some training in less traditional roles. Sixty percent of respondents received few or no requests to participate in SRs, and only half of respondents had participated in SRs as a review team member. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their libraries had no policies regarding librarian roles and participation in SRs. CONCLUSIONS: The surveyed veterinary librarians participated in SRs to a lesser degree than human health sciences librarians, experienced low demand from veterinary faculty and students to participate in SRs, and participated as review team members at significantly lower rates than human health sciences librarians. The main barriers to participation in SRs were lack of library policies, insufficient training, and lack of time. Medical Library Association 2019-10 2019-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6774563/ /pubmed/31607807 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.710 Text en Copyright: © 2019, Authors. Articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Toews, Lorraine
Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews
title Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews
title_full Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews
title_fullStr Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews
title_full_unstemmed Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews
title_short Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews
title_sort benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6774563/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31607807
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.710
work_keys_str_mv AT toewslorraine benchmarkingveterinarylibrariansparticipationinsystematicreviewsandscopingreviews