A Systematic Review of Librarian-Provided Services Delivered in Healthcare Settings Finds a Positive Effect on Clinician and Patient Relevant Outcomes and Identifies Gaps in the Evidence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Perrier, L., Farrell, A., Ayala, A. P., Lightfoot, D., Kenny, T., Aaronson, E., . . . Weiss, A. ( 2014). Effects of librarian-provided services in healthcare settings: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 21(6), 1118-1124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002825 Abstract Objective – To assess the effects of librarian-provided services, in any healthcare setting, on outcomes important to patients, healthcare providers, and researchers. Design – Systematic review and narrative synthesis. Setting – MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, LISA, and CENTRAL databases; library-related websites, conference proceedings, and reference lists of included studies. Subjects – Twenty-five studies identified through a systematic literature search. Methods – In consultation with the review team, a librarian designed a search to be run in MEDLINE that was peer-reviewed against a published checklist. The team then conducted searches in the five identified databases, adapting the search as appropriate for each database. Authors also checked the websites of library and evidence based healthcare organisations, along with abstracts of relevant conference proceedings, to supplement the electronic search. Two authors screened the literature search results for eligible studies, and reached agreement by consensus. Studies of any librarian-delivered service in a healthcare setting, directed at either patients, clinicians of any type, researchers, or students, along with studies reporting outcomes relevant to clinicians, patients, or researchers, were eligible for inclusion. The authors assessed results initially on the titles and abstracts, and then on the full-text of potentially relevant reports. The data from included studies were then extracted into a piloted data extraction form, and each study was assessed for quality using the Cochrane EPOC risk of bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The results were synthesised narratively. Main Results – The searches retrieved a total of 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria, comprised of 22 primary papers and 3 companion reports. Authors identified 12 randomised trials, 4 controlled before-and-after studies, 3 cohorts, 2 non-randomised trials, and 1 case-control study. They identified three main categories of intervention: librarians teaching search skills; providing literature searching as a service; and a combination of the teaching and provision of search services. The interventions were delivered to a mix of trainees, clinicians, and students. None of the studies examined services delivered directly to patients or to researchers. The quality assessment found most of the studies had a mid- to high-risk of bias due to factors such as lack of random sequence generation, a lack of validated tools for data collection, or a lack of statistical analysis included in the study. Two studies measured patient relevant outcomes and reported that searches provided by librarians to clinicians had a positive impact on the patient’s length of stay in hospital. Five studies examined the effect of librarian provided services on outcomes important to clinicians, such as whether a literature search influenced a clinical decision. There was a trend towards a positive effect, although two studies found no significant difference. The majority of studies investigated the impact of training delivered to trainees and students on their literature search skills. Twelve of these studies found a positive effect of training on the recipients’ search skills, while three found no difference. The secondary outcomes considered by this review were satisfaction with the service (8 studies), relevance of the answers provided by librarians (2), and cost (3). The majority reported good satisfaction, and relevance. A cost benefit was found in 2 of 3 studies that reported this outcome. Conclusion – Authors report a positive effect of training on the literature search skills of trainees and students, and identified a benefit in the small number of studies that examined librarian services to clinicians. Future studies should use validated data collection tools, and further research should be conducted in the area of services provided to clinicians. Research is needed on the effect of librarian-provided services to patients and researchers as no studies meeting the inclusion criteria examining these two groups were identified by the literature search.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,047 | 0,221 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,021 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».