Employers’ Perspectives on Future Roles and Skills Requirements for Australian Health Librarians
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective – This study, which comprises one stage of a larger project (ALIA/HLA Workforce and Education Research Project), aimed to discover employers’ views on how (or whether) health librarians assist in achieving the mission-critical goals of their organizations; how health librarians contribute to the organization now and into the future; and what are the current and future skills requirements of health librarians. Methods – Each member of the project group approached between one and five individuals known to them to generate a convenience sample of 22 employers of health librarians. There were 15 semi-structured interviews conducted between October and November 2010 with employers in the hospital, academic, government, private, consumer health and not-for-profit sectors. The interview schedule was sent to each interviewee prior to the interview so that they had time to consider their responses. The researchers wrote up the interview notes using the interview schedule and submitted them to the principal researcher, who combined the data into one document. Content analysis of the data was used to identify major themes. Results – Employers expressed a clear sense of respect for the roles and responsibilities of library staff in their organizations. Areas of practice such as education and training, scientific research and clinical support were highlighted as critical for the future. Current areas of practice such as using technology and systems to manage information, providing information services to meet user needs and management of health information resources in a range of formats were identified as remaining highly relevant for the future. There was potential for health librarians to play a more active and strategic role in their organizations, and to repackage their traditional skill sets for anticipated future roles. Interpersonal skills and the role of health librarians as the interface between clinicians and information technology were also identified as critical for the future. Conclusions – Interviews with employers provided valuable insights into the current and future roles and skills requirements of health librarians in Australia, enriching the findings of the earlier stages of the research project. The next step is to work with the stakeholder groups in this project and use the research project’s findings as the evidence base on which to develop a structured, modular education framework comprising a postgraduate qualification in health librarianship and a continuing professional development structure supporting a three-year cycle of certification and revalidation.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,110 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».