Editorial

‘and even evidence-based librarianship?’1 With these words a recent medical journal article attempts to epitomise the almost improbable spread of evidence-based practice to other domains. For librarians such as ourselves, involved in supporting the evidence-based practice of others for many years, such a migration from apparent improbability to reality is, on the contrary, a logical extension of such activities. In fact, as long ago as 1997, independently and on opposite sides of the Atlantic, we (along with kindred minds) recognized that the time was opportune to render more than mere lip service to such a paradigm. That it has taken so long to produce an issue devoted to evidence-based health information practice attests to the fact that, as pronounced elsewhere, ‘Evidence-based Librarianship requires international collaboration’.2 The catalyst, in the literal sense of the word, for the progress of evidence-based librarianship from national enthusiasms to international movement, was an individual, Bruce Madge, simultaneously international representative for the Medical Library Association and chair of the Health Libraries Group Research Working Party. In this guise Bruce engineered the vital initial contact between the two co-editors of this issue. It is doubly appropriate therefore that Bruce went on to chair HELICON (Health Libraries and Information Confederation) under whose generous auspices we have been able to produce this complimentary special issue. In addition to a catalyst, however, impetus requires prime movers. The HELICON Research Task Finish Group assembled many individuals who have helped, directly or indirectly, to shape this issue. Their support for the First ever Evidence-based Librarianship conference organized by Andrew Booth and held in Sheffield in September 2001 led to Jonathan Eldredge being invited to deliver a keynote address. The Call for Papers identified Ellen Crumley and Denise Koufogiannakis who, along with colleagues at the University of Alberta, had made initial steps towards implementation of EBL. Bringing together individuals from three different countries has led to considerable productivity, including collaborative articles, reciprocal publishing and, to coincide with the publication month of this special issue, a second Evidence-based Librarianship Conference in Edmonton, Alberta on June 4th−6th 2003. Finally, it has spawned production of a multi-authored book to be published by Facet Publishing (formerly Library Association Publishing) in Autumn 2003. It is particularly instructive to review distinct features of the evolution and current practice of EBL in the United States. EBL began to emerge in the US well before the concept and phrase ‘Evidence-Based Librarianship’3 actually took hold. It not only evolved within the MLA and its affiliated chapters but, more importantly, has become embodied within this organization. The MLA-sponsored continuing education course on EBL, for example, has been conducted no less than 14 times. The Research Section of the MLA has become a ‘spiritual home’ for EBL in the US. Indeed the MLA Research Policy ‘Using Scientific Evidence to Improve Information Practice’4 (1995) anticipated the EBL movement. The journal Hypothesis under its former editor, Jan LaBeause, and current editor, Andrea Ball, has been the locus for much EBL discussion and debate, of untapped interest to the international community. The ‘International Research Reviews’ column edited by Anne Brice keeps US librarians aware of EBL activities overseas as a corrective to any peculiar American tendency for insularity. The MLA Research Section encompasses 13 standing committees, of which eight are, directly or indirectly, concerned with EBL activities. The fact that only some of these, such as the Evidence-Based Librarianship Implementation Committee, the International Research Collaboration Committee, Practice Guidelines Advisory Committee or the Research Results Dissemination Committee, have names to reflect their strong EBL focus masks the full extent of this activity. The coveted MLA Research Award in recent years has honoured EBL-orientated forms of research. The MLA South Central and Southern Chapters have sponsored Research Award contests, thereby reflecting strong interest in EBL amongst chapter members. Although MLA has championed EBL in the US, it is noteworthy that the Special Libraries Association too released an EBL orientated research policy during 2001.5 Library and informatics schools are becoming keen on EBL—the University of North Texas School of Library and Information Sciences includes it in its Health Sciences Information Management course under the leadership of Professors Ana Cleveland and Gale Hannigan. EBL gains great advantages from its MLA institutional base but with a corresponding disadvantage—as a large organization MLA has an incredibly diverse agenda. Issues such as technology may distract many MLA members from pursuing a more focused course of EBL implementation. Some MLA members, though referencing EBL frequently, are not always well versed in its core principles. Such a tendency may be true of any large movement, however. Nevertheless, fragmentation of efforts means that EBL still has great, yet unrealized potential, within the US. We sincerely hope that this joint issue will contribute towards unlocking such potential. In seeking to bring the most relevant, highest-quality evidence to bear in making practical decisions within our field, it is fitting that EBL should reflect the different environments and, indeed, countries where librarians face distinct challenges. For example, the editors have contributed articles to epitomise a US concern with the quality of the evidence base, particularly randomized controlled trials (the article by Jonathan Eldredge), and a UK emphasis on interpretation and critical appraisal of the evidence (the article by Andrew Booth and Anne Brice). Yet, the international EBL movement remains consistent in its core characteristics and strongly united in a common purpose. This issue contains two historic systematic reviews (by Catherine Beverley and Alison Winning; and by Alison Brettle) that will, no doubt, interest known EBL practitioners in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and Latin America, as well as those already mentioned in Canada, the UK and the US. A major randomized controlled trial from Hong Kong (the article by Grace Cheng) further acknowledges the potential contribution from Asia. This international flavour is also exemplified by a brief communication (by Steve Pritchard and Alison Weightman) on the Cochrane Collaboration's Information Retrieval Methods Group and by comparison, and indeed contrast (see commentary by Maria Grant), of parallel initiatives in Canada (Ellen Crumley and Denize Koufogiannakis) and the UK (Liz Doney and colleagues). However, there remains a predominantly UK focus to this issue as evidenced by real and very practical examples from Graham Haldane and Michelle Kirkwood. This special supplementary issue attests to the healthy state of our parent journal, now enjoying a regular supply of high-quality contributions. Most importantly, however, it pays homage to the vision of our sponsors, HELICON, who have recognized that it is not enough to respond to trends—one must shape and fashion them. In funding this issue they have contributed a major landmark in the progress of our profession towards becoming truly evidence based.

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.