Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – Assess whether the North Wales Clinical Librarian service changed the information behaviour of team clinicians. Specific objectives were to: Assess which services were used. Estimate the effects of training on clinician search patterns and search times. Examine the benefits of services regarding clinical governance. Examine the effects of training on clinician confidence. Explore factors affecting librarian-clinician collaboration. Design – Observational, longitudinal evaluation through: 1. Librarian reflective diaries 2. Baseline and final questionnaire surveys 3. In-person and telephone interviews between surveys Setting – Three National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Trusts in North Wales, UK. These included North West Wales, Conwy & Denbighshire, and North East Wales. Subjects – Physicians, nurses, and allied clinical staff working with clinical librarians in one of the above three NHS Trusts. Methods – The evaluation period ran from November 2003 through January 2005. Data collected varied between Trusts, since program activities varied across locations. Questionnaire data was analyzed with Excel; interview data was analyzed with QSR N6. North East Wales/Conwy & Denbighshire: In these two Trusts, baseline questionnaires were distributed in April 2004; interviews were conducted between July and October 2004, and final questionnaires were distributed in December 2004. Sixty-nine baseline questionnaires were returned from the April distribution, and 57 final questionnaires were returned in December. Additionally, 33 face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted between July and October. North West Wales: Immediate post-training feedback was collected from 90 participants; questionnaires sent one month after training had only a 32% response rate (24 of 75 questionnaires). Twelve interviews were conducted. Results – Interviews at all sites demonstrated a conflict between wanting the librarian to perform searches for the clinical teams, and the clinicians needing or wanting more independence through greater search skills. The librarian reflective diaries showed a change in practice over the evaluation period. Administrative duties lessened and more time was spent on searching or teaching. North East Wales/Conwy & Denbighshire: Although a greater percentage of medical staff reported using NHS and library Web sites by the end of the evaluation period (70.7% versus 59.4%), a larger percentage felt overwhelmed by the amount of information retrieved (68.3% versus 60.9%). At baseline, more than 50% wished to spend less than 10 minutes on a search of “general importance but not of personal interest” (18), but follow up indicated that the number of physicians expecting to spend that small amount of time had dropped to 36%. Among nurses and allied professionals, changes in information behaviour were fewer. The interviews confirmed that information provided by a clinical librarian affected patient management and/or therapy; patient diagnosis was not affected. One interview indicated that cost savings had resulted from information provided by a clinical librarian. Forty-five percent of interviewees felt that their search skills had improved. North West Wales: Ninety-nine percent of session attendees rated training programs highly. Although feedback indicated a desire for more training, 88.9% did feel more confident about their search abilities immediately following a program. The one-month-post-training questionnaire had a very low response rate (32%), but over 54% of those responding did believe that their skills had improved. But one month later, 12 interviews reported that “initial enthusiasm had usually tapered off” (20), and those interviewed weren’t sure if they really had better skills. Conclusions – While findings weren’t conclusive, they suggest that having a librarian participate on a clinical team does lead to changes in information behaviour. Staff members were more confident searchers, more willing to search for information, and more willing to delegate that task to a librarian. The study also suggests that library services may be effectively targeted to specific groups of clinicians, and may have an impact on patient care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".