MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727723452 · doi:10.18438/b8xh3f

Low Level Evidence Suggests That Librarian-Led Instruction in Evidence Based Practice is Effective Regardless of Instructional Model

2017· article· en· W2727723452 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lindsay Alcock

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)ChecklistCritical appraisalMedical libraryCurriculumLibrary scienceSystematic reviewMEDLINEEvidence-based practicePsychologyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineAlternative medicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of:
 Swanberg, S. M., Dennison, C. C., Farrell, A., Machel, V., Marton, C., O'Brien, K. K., … & Holyoke, A. N. (2016). Instructional methods used by health sciences librarians to teach evidence-based practice (EBP): a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 104(3), 197-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.004
 
 Abstract 
 
 Objective – To determine both the instructional methods and their effectiveness in teaching evidence based practice (EBP) by librarians in health sciences curricula. 
 
 Design – Systematic review.
 
 Setting – A total of 16 databases, Google Scholar, and MLA Annual Meeting abstracts.
 
 Subjects – There were 27 studies identified through a systematic literature search.
 
 Methods – An exhaustive list of potential articles was gathered through searching 16 online databases, Google Scholar, and MLA Annual Conference abstracts. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified to inform the literature search and determine article eligibility. Duplicates were removed and the remaining search results were divided into sets and assigned to two reviewers who screened first by title/abstract and then by full-text. A third reviewer addressed disagreement in article inclusion. Data extraction, using a validated method described by Koufogiannakis and Wiebe (2006), and critical appraisal, using the Glasgow checklist (1999), were performed concurrently.
 
 Main Results – After removal of duplicates 30,043 articles were identified for initial title/abstract screening. Of the 637 articles assessed for full-text screening 26 articles and 1 conference proceeding ultimately met all eligibility criteria. There was no meta-analysis included in the synthesis. There were 16 articles published in library and information science journals and 10 in health sciences journals. Of those studies, 22 were conducted in the United States. A wide range of user groups was identified as participants in the studies with medical students and residents representing the highest percentage and nursing and other allied health professional programs also included. While there was variation in sample size and group allocation, the authors estimate an average of 50 participants per instructional session. Included studies represented research undertaken since the 1990s. All studies addressed at least one of the standard EBP steps including obtaining the best evidence through a literature search (27 studies), developing a clinical question (22 studies), and critical appraisal (12 studies). There were 11 studies which addressed applying evidence to clinical scenarios, and 1 study which addressed the efficacy and efficiency of the EBP process. The majority of studies indicated that literature searching was the primary focus of EBP instruction with MEDLINE being the most utilized database and Cochrane second. Other resources include databases and clinical decision support tools. 
 
 Teaching methods, including lecture, small group, computer lab, and online instruction, varied amongst the studies. There were 7 studies which employed 1 instructional method while 20 employed a combination of teaching methods. Only one study compared instructional methods and found that students obtained better scores when they received online instruction as compared with face-to-face instruction. The difference, however, was not statistically significant. 
 
 Skills assessments were conducted in most of the studies utilizing various measurements both validated and not validated. Given the variation in measurement tools a cross-study analysis was not possible. The most common assessment methods included self-reporting and pre- and post-surveys of participants’ attitudes and confidence in EBP skills. 
 
 Randomization was utilized in 10 studies, and an additional 3 studies had a “clearly defined intervention group.” There were 10 blinded studies and 15 studies utilized cohorts with pre- and post- intervention assessments. There were 25 studies which included descriptive statistics and many also included inferential statistics intended to show significance. Differences between groups were assessed with parametric measures in 9 studies and non-parametric measures in 15 studies. Good to high statistical significance on at least 1 measurement was achieved in 23 studies. Given the absence of effect sizes, the level of differences between study groups could not be determined. 
 
 Conclusion – Numerous pedagogical methods are used in librarian-led instruction in evidence based practice. However, there is a paucity of high level evidence and the literature suggests that no instructional method is demonstrated to be more effective than another.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.426
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207