Full Text

Turn on search term navigation

Introduction

In health sciences libraries, we constantly strive to expand with new services to meet the evolving needs of the researchers we support. As we continue to become further integrated into our researchers’ projects, we want to make the most productive use of our time and resources. In 2016, 2 members of our team (MB, SV) were involved in reviewing the research support services offered by the Health Sciences Library at the University of Ottawa. As part of this process, we were interested in identifying the services offered by other health sciences libraries, how these services were implemented, and the degree to which they were evaluated, in order to inform future service development at our location.

We conducted an informal environmental scan of other Canadian academic health sciences library websites, as well as a preliminary literature review. We also reached out via email and telephone to several academic libraries across the country for their input. Through this process, we realized that no formal reviews of research services in the health sciences had yet been conducted (either in Canada or more broadly), and that there was an appetite at other academic libraries for a means to compare services. Given the seemingly ever-present scarcity of resources and time at health sciences libraries, many of the librarians we contacted indicated an interest in broadening their range of services without re-invention, false steps, failed attempts, and time lost. That is to say, they would prefer to implement service models that had already been tested and reported on elsewhere.

To this end, we conducted a scoping review to identify reports of research support services in health sciences libraries. We kept our criteria deliberately broad so that our review could inform libraries outside of Canada as well as within. We also endeavoured to examine not only academic health sciences libraries but also hospital and special libraries serving health researchers, so that we might paint a more fulsome picture of the current research service landscape. As such, references to health sciences libraries in this paper imply all academic, hospital, and special libraries that serve medical, allied health, or any other health-related researchers (including dentistry) unless specified otherwise.

The research service landscape that continues to evolve today stems from the period following World War II, when health sciences libraries examined means to better support researchers, keep up with their needs, prove the library’s value to them, and even become part of the research team (1-4). This phenomenon of librarians as part of the research process–not only as suppliers of information, but increasingly as active collaborators–took firmer hold in the late 90s and 2000s, with a variety of new services, roles, and positions (5-9). For example, an emerging role in health sciences libraries this century has been the informationist, defined first by Davidoff and Florance (10) as specialists trained in the essentials of both information science and clinical work to more thoroughly bridge the 2 domains. The role has since proliferated in both the literature and job descriptions (8,11,12) and continues to expand to duties including systematic review support, training, and embedded librarianship (8,12-14).

Exploring the reported range of support services for researchers can assist the continued evolution of health sciences libraries. By determining the types of research support services provided by libraries, and the extent of evaluation conducted on these services, we can also build the foundation for a more rigorous assessment in the future of which services are backed by evidence.

Methods

Our protocol follows Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework (15). We used the PRISMA reporting checklist for systematic reviews to guide our report, as there are currently no formal reporting guidelines for scoping reviews to our knowledge (16, 17).

Search

One librarian on our team (MB) created the search strategy in Ovid MEDLINE using a combination of index terms and keywords around librarianship, research services, medicine, nursing, dentistry, and the health sciences. The search was peer-reviewed by a second librarian (KF). Once finalized, the search was translated to the other bibliographic databases of interest.

We conducted our bibliographic database searches on February 11, 2017. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to Present), EMBASE (Ovid, Embase Classic+Embase 1947 to 2017 February 10), ERIC (Ovid, ERIC 1965 to October 2016), CINAHL (EBSCO, from inception), LISTA (EBSCO, from inception), LISS (EBSCO, from inception), Scopus (Elsevier, from inception) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, all databases, from inception) to identify reports of research support services provided in health sciences libraries (full Medline search strategy available in Appendix A). We applied no date or language limits.

We imported citations into EndNote X7 and removed duplicates by manual inspection aided by the EndNote duplicate identification feature (18). We imported citations to Rayyan (19) for title/abstract screening, and Covidence (20) for full-text screening. We conducted screening in duplicate (AM, MH, MB, SV), discussing conflicts between screeners and, when necessary, involving a third team member to arbitrate.

In addition to our bibliographic database searches, 1 searcher (MB) conducted a series of advanced Google and Google Scholar searches in August 2017, and again in October 2017, to identify grey literature (Appendix B). For each search, the searcher reviewed pages of 20 results at a time for relevant results until no relevant results were identified for 3 consecutive pages (21, 22). Reports that the searcher deemed relevant were then reviewed in duplicate by additional team members (AM, MH, SV) at the full-text level. To complement the search for grey literature, a team member (MH) contacted several health sciences library listservs in November 2017 and again in January 2018.

Further, 1 team member (AM) reviewed included studies’ bibliographies for additional relevant reports. Reports that were deemed relevant were then reviewed in duplicate by the other team members (MB, MH, SV) at the full-text level.

Screening

We included articles if they:

1) were set in an academic health sciences library (including general science libraries serving health sciences populations), hospital library, or special library with a health focus;

2) described the development, implementation, or evaluation of one or more research support initiatives provided in the aforementioned contexts, regardless of study type; and

3) were available in English or French.

We consider “support initiatives” to be any service aimed at supporting individuals or groups conducting research that fall outside the “traditional” range of services offered in most academic, hospital, or special health sciences libraries (e.g. document delivery, reference services or loaning materials).

We define “research” as a “process of investigation leading to new insights, effectively shared” (23). This focuses our review on what we call “capital R research”, which implies the explicit intention on the researcher’s part to disseminate new knowledge. This is more specific than more general uses of the term that may imply simple information gathering, or information literacy training with no intention of publishing (e.g. students “researching” for their term paper), or work that informs clinician practice at the bedside but no further.

Extraction

Team members individually (AM, MB, SV) extracted study data in Google Sheets and extractions were verified by a second team member (MH). Conflicts between extractor and verifier were discussed and arbitrated by a third team member when necessary. Data extraction consisted of publication information, context (study country, library type), population (types of researchers supported), service types, service details, and, when available, evaluation methods and findings.

Results

We identified 7134 records through bibliographic database searching. We eliminated 3108 duplicates, and conducted title or abstract screening on 4026 records, with 3751 records excluded at this phase. Full-text screening was conducted on 333 records (275 records from title or abstract inclusion, plus an additional 58 records identified through grey literature searching, records from listserv responses, and reference list searching). Of these, we excluded 258, leaving 75 included records (Figure 1). Of these 75 records, two (24, 25) describe the same service implementation. For the purposes of reporting, we used the publication information from one (24) and merged the service and evaluation information extracted from these two records to treat them as a single study. For this reason, we will refer hereafter to 74 included studies.

Fig. 1 PRISMA Flow Diagram

Figure 1

Included studies were published between 1990 and 2017 (Table 1 and Figure 2). Fifty per cent (n=37) of reports were published in the last five years. The year with the highest number of publications was 2015 (n=12). Included studies were most commonly published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (n=20), Medical Reference Services Quarterly (n=11), and the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association (n=5) (Supplemental Table A).

Tab.1 Included study characteristics

N =74 100%
Date Published 2013-2018 37 50%
2007-2012 19 26%
2001-2006 12 16%
1995-2000 4 5%
Pre-1995 2 3%
Study Design Program Description 49 65%
Program Evaluation 15 20%
Research Article - Qualitative 5 7%
Research Article - Quantitative 6 8%
Country of Origin*** United States 61 82%
Canada 9 12%
United Kingdom 5 7%
South Africa 1 1%
Library Type Academic 55 74%
Hospital 8 11%
Mixed (multiple types reported) 7 10%
Special 4 5%
Service Type*** Creation of Library Position 27 36%
Systematic Reviews 25 34%
Grant Support 24 32%
Data Management 19 26%
Research Metrics 15 20%
Open Access/Repositories 10 13%
Other 35 47%
Evaluation Conducted 35 47%
Method of Evaluation*** Informal information gathering 17 48%
Statistics 13 37%
Surveys 7 20%
Interviews 2 6%
Post-workshop evaluations 2 6%
Focus Groups 1 3%
Pre-post test 1 3%
Not specified 1 3%
***Numbers do not equal total included studies because some records reported on multiple countries/services/evaluation methods

Fig.2. Included studies by year of publication

Figure 2

A large majority of included studies were program descriptions (n=49), featuring case studies providing context and information on new service implementations. The next most frequent study type was program evaluation (n=15). These articles described new library services and included an evaluation component. Eleven research articles were included, which consisted of 6 studies focused on quantitative data analysis and 5 focused on qualitative analysis. Articles predominantly reported academic health library contexts (n=55). Of the remaining 19 included studies, 8 report on hospital library contexts, 7 have mixed contexts (reporting on 2 or more different contexts), and 4 were reports on special libraries, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (26, 27), the Veterans Evidence-based Research Dissemination Implementation Center (28), and the British Dental Association Library (29). Populations served were primarily researchers and academic faculty, although staff, students, clinicians, nurses, and trainees were also mentioned. The most common research support services described were the creation of new research support positions (n=27), systematic review services (n=25), grant support (n=24), data management services (n=19), research metrics services (n=15), and open access publishing and/or repository services (n=10) (Table 2). Other less-represented services were also captured (n=32). These numbers do not equal our number of included reports as many articles reported implementing multiple services (Table 1).

Tab.2 Included Studies by Services Described

Studies Services Described
SR Grant Support Metrics OA/ Repository Data Mgmt New Position Other
Academic
Braun (2017) X
Beasley et al. (2016) X X X X
Mi (2016) X
Rosenzweig et al. (2016) X
Blackstock et al. (2015) X
Burnette et al. (2015) X X X
Campbell et al. (2015) X
Chiware et al. (2015) X X X
Falconer (2015) X
Henderson et al. (2015) X X X X
Ludeman et al. (2015) X
Rambo (2015) X
Read et al. (2015) X
Allee et al. (2014) X X X X
Hardi et al. (2014) X
Janke et al. (2014) X X X X
Raimondo et al. (2014) X
Smith et al. (2014) X X
Steelman et al. (2014) X
Black et al. (2013) X
Federer (2013) X X X X X
Goode et al. (2013) X X X X
Gore (2013) X X X X
Hasman et al. (2013) X X
Li et al. (2013) X X X
Mann et al. (2013) X X
Pepper et al. (2013) X
Vaughan et al. (2013) X X X X X
Johnson et al. (2012) X X X X
Reeves (2012) X X
Holmes (2011) X X X X X
Tattersall et al. (2011) X
Wilmes (2011) X
Cheek (2010) X X X
Cheek et al. (2010) X X X X
Hendrix (2010) X
Klem et al. (2009) X X
Koopman et al. (2009) X
Harroun et al. (2008) X
Song (2008) X X X
Barnett et al. (2007) X X
Banks (2006) X X X
Epstein (2006) X
Minie et al. (2006) X
Chilov et al. (2005) X
Robinson et al. (2005) X
Tennant (2005) X X X
Helms et al. (2004) X X
Moore et al. (2004) X
Watson et al. (2003) X
Florance et al. (2002) X X X
Means (2000) X
Yarfitz et al. (2000) X
Mead et al. (1995) X X
Fenichel et al. (1994) X X
Hospital SR Grant Support Metrics OA/ Repository Data Mgmt New Position Other
Ginex et al. (2016) X
Ipsaralexi et al. (2015) X
Lightfoot et al. (2015) X
Dudden et al. (2011) X
Leman (2008) X
Frumento et al. (2007) X
Felber et al. (2006) X
Pratt (1990) X
Special SR Grant Support Metrics OA/ Repository Data Mgmt New Position Other
King et al. (2016) X X X X X X
BDA library to assist... (2014) X
Whitmore et al. (2008) X X
Harris (2005) X
Mixed SR Grant Support Metrics OA/ Repository Data Mgmt New Position Other
Knehans et al. (2016) X X
Macdonald (2015) X X
Crum et al. (2013) X X X X X X X
Holmes et al. (2013) X X X X
Lorenzetti et al. (2012) X X
Glenn et al. (2010) X X X X
Bai et al. (2000) X

Creation of research support positions (n=27)

The most commonly reported research service was the allocation of positions that focused either exclusively or in great part on research support. These positions were created either through hiring or through the transformation of titles and roles of existing personnel. Our data set includes 27 reports (36%) on the creation of at least 1 new position (Table 2). Position titles varied in specificity. Some titles clearly delineated the job’s area of focus, such as director for research data management (30), emerging technologies librarian (31), or Institutional Review Board (IRB) librarian (32). Other titles were more general and did not necessarily share the same primary responsibilities as others with the same title at other institutions, such as informationist (26, 27, 33-37). In total, the 27 reports in this group presented 28 unique job titles, which are listed in Table 2 of the supplementary files. Among these titles, 14 permuted on the name informationist (e.g. information specialist, bioinformaticist). Twelve positions contained librarian in the job title (e.g. translational research librarian, public/private partnership librarian). Five positions included either liaison, analyst, developer, or director in their title. Note that the aforementioned breakdown adds up to more than 28 because some titles, such as bioinformatics librarian, fall into 2 categories. More significant than their titles were the roles these people fulfilled in supporting research. Some, such as the IRB Librarian (32), had a particular focus, which in this case was to provide literature search and consultative support to 2 IRBs. Others were charged with multiple tasks along the research continuum, such as the University of California-Los Angeles research informationist (38) who reported digitizing lab notebooks, aggregating research data, creating metadata standards for a research team, and offering expert searching and bibliometric analysis services to other teams.

Systematic review (n=25)

Support for systematic reviews was another highly-represented service, appearing in 25 of the 75 reports (34%) (Table 2). The earliest identified report of systematic review or meta-analysis support was from 1995 (39), although it was not until 2009 that systematic review services started being reported regularly (Table 2). As systematic reviews are complex undertakings, it should come as no surprise that models for research support varied considerably. Depending on the specific implementation, a library’s systematic review service could be provided by a single information professional (37, 40, 41) or by a coordinated team (28, 42, 43). In some instances, support consisted of a single main service, such as providing instruction on systematic reviews and their methods (33, 44, 45). In other instances, libraries introduced an array of services, including training, developing search strategies, running searches, managing search results, obtaining full-text reports, and providing methods write-ups (25, 43, 46-51).

Due to the time-intensive nature of systematic review support, some libraries identified the need to introduce fee-based services (24, 48). Knehans, et al. (48) and Beasley and Rosseel (24) both reported implementing a 2-tiered service model, where certain services, such as advising on the systematic review process, were offered at no charge, while services that placed a greater demand on personnel time and expertise, such as designing and running systematic review searches, fell under fee-based services.

Also due to the time-intensive nature of systematic review support, Campbell (42) presented strategies adopted by the University of Alberta’s John W. Scott Health Sciences Library to free up personnel time that could then be re-allocated to helping with reviews. Crum’s (35) survey study reported on traditional responsibilities (e.g. reference desk, collection development) that were eliminated to free up time for systematic reviews and other services. To demonstrate the value of its time commitment to systematic reviews, St. Michael’s Hospital’s Scotiabank Health Sciences Library in Toronto (43) tracked the different and significant roles played by library staff on reviews, such as critical appraiser, data extractor, and data synthesizer.

Grant support (n=24)

Twenty-four (32%) of the included studies addressed library services created to support researchers in pursuing grants (Table 2). Some of these services centred on facilitating access to grant funding, frequently in the form of creating databases of funding information (52-55). For example, Fenichel et al. (52) created an online bulletin board that included access to the Sponsored Programs Information Network (SPIN) database of funding sources, and Rosenzweig et al. (55) created a Research and Funding Grants Guide. At the School of Medicine at the University of Washington, a Research Funding Service librarian was hired to liaise between the school and the service, as well as perform “administrative and budget reporting, evaluation and sharing of funding information, and promotion of selected local funding opportunities.”(53)

Several libraries offered workshops on grant writing or on grant application requirements. The University of Minnesota Health Sciences Libraries created a workshop to help applicants to the NIH and the National Science Foundation create data management plans (56). The University of Michigan Health Sciences Library, in collaboration with the Medical School Office of Research, created a workshop and YouTube video on inserting graphics into grant applications (57). Other institutions also created general grant-writing workshops (58).

In addition to workshops, other described services included: the creation of the DMPTool (30), an open source template builder for data management plans; the involvement in grant writing and review (31, 35, 38, 50, 59); the provision of background information support for grant and funding applications (60); and the offer of training required as part of a local funding competition for small clinical projects (61).

Data management (n=19)

Data management was another main category of research support, with 19 (26%) studies examining this area (Table 2). As funding agencies and journals increasingly require sound data management plans, many libraries have stepped in with support. Of the 19 included studies that elucidated grant support services, 10 (53%) also offered data management support, either linked directly to their grant support initiatives or offered alongside their explicit grant support services. Methods of data management support ranged from workshops, like the University of Minnesota Health Sciences Libraries’ “Creating a Data Management Plan for Your Grant Application Workshop” (56), to more intensive services where librarians provided their expertise to create data plans (62).

While most libraries reported providing data management training, support, and tool creation (30, 37, 63), 1 reported personnel becoming part of a research team to take on data management activities (38). This library member on the research team provided “advice on data management and curation, including metadata standards and preservation and preparation of data for sharing.”(38) Li et al.(64) reported providing in-depth data analysis for researchers. Others’ services included support and hosting of institutional repositories to store and share researchers’ data (30, 65), enabling access to datasets and creating data catalogues (66, 67), and having dedicated librarians for data management projects (33).

Research metrics (n=15)

Fifteen (20%) studies discussed research metrics services (Table 2). Nine articles focused on research metrics services that libraries should be or were providing, the majority of which focused on how research metric services were being offered or developed in their library (24-27, 62, 68, 69). In the group of 9 articles, 2 addressed the role of libraries in providing research metric services though not based on services they were providing in their libraries. Holmes (68) discussed results from an environmental scan of what health libraries were doing, while Crum (35) included results from a survey of library administrators and librarians on what they offered or were looking to offer. Hendrix (70) reported on an instruction series developed upon recognizing a need from faculty for more information on research metrics to assist them with tracking their publications for promotion as well as for grant applications.

Beyond general library services, 4 articles focused on researcher publication tracking (71-74). Bai and Kelly (71), Barnette and Keener (73), and Braun (72) discussed creating in-house databases to track their users’ publications, and engaging with departments on campus who used the data they collected. Braun (72) noted a new collaboration that developed across campus through this initiative between information technology staff, medical school administrators, and liaison librarians. Burnette (74) provided an overview of a research audit of their institution and the subsequent building of a database to track their researchers’ publications. Two reports (34, 59) focused on research impact services provided by librarians embedded in research departments.

Open access and repository (n=10)

Ten reports (13%) mentioned services involving open access and repository support (Table 2). Several libraries described promoting their own or external open repositories to their researchers (26, 30, 65, 75, 76). Koopman and Kipnis (75) described the implementation, promotion, and challenges of the Jefferson Digital Commons institutional repository. Henderson (30) reported on a new director of research data management who identified the library’s institutional repository as a possible endpoint for researchers’ data. The Cape Peninsula University of Technology’s Library in South Africa, as part of the University’s RDM Working Group, helped shape the university’s RDM Policy (65), part of which involved assisting the university’s Institute of Biomedical and Microbial Biotechnology identify laboratory journals for digitization and storage in the institution’s repository. The University of Virginia’s Claude Moore Health Sciences Library (76) championed open access publishing in BioMed Central (BMC) with presentations, a newsletter article, a website, and investment in an institutional license to BMC. Even the NIH Library reported getting in on repository work (26). As a government library, the NIH Library was in a unique position to digitize its own public domain publications and place them on open repositories such as the Internet Archive for worldwide use (26).

In the United States, open access and repository services in health sciences libraries have often been a response to the NIH public access policy. Crum and Cooper’s (35) survey of 405 librarians indicated that 110 respondents (27%) had in recent years added the role of helping authors comply with NIH public access policy to their repertoires. The Coy C. Carpenter Library at Wake Forest University (73) implemented three changes to better support policy compliance: including PubMed Central ID (PMCID) in its internal faculty member database, offering a Scholarly Publishing Assistance online toolkit, and offering faculty information sessions on open access and NIH policy compliance. Vaughan et al. (62) described how the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Health Sciences Library assisted researchers with repository selection and policy compliance. Finally, Holmes (68) reported on providing education and training on policy compliance, as well as further information on the Becker Medical Library’s scholarly communication website.

Other services (n=35)

Thirty-five (47%) studies reported additional research support services that did not fall into the largest categories outlined above (Table 2). These less-represented services ranged from sitting on ethics review boards (40, 77), research committees (40, 78-80) or Animal Care and Use committees (81), to serving as full members of research teams (29, 31, 35-38, 59), offering copyright-related services (82) or consent form and research protocol assistance (83). Reported services also included the creation of tools, portals, or taxonomies (35, 37, 67, 78, 84, 85), providing non-systematic review search support (2, 69, 78, 81, 86, 87), creating new library spaces for researchers (88), providing training in various topics of relevance along the research lifecycle (31, 64, 67-69, 78, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89-91), or leading community-building activities such as forming groups or hubs to connect researchers with potential collaborators (26, 69, 74, 91-93).

Reports that include evaluations (n=35)

Among the 74 reports, 35 (47%) included some form of evaluation of the implemented services. Many of these evaluations were largely informal (n=17), with the authors reporting anecdotal feedback they had received after implementing new services (32, 37, 41, 42, 44, 66, 71, 72, 81, 84, 89, 94) or in which they supplemented another form of evaluation along with informal feedback (32, 48, 55, 78, 83). Statistics gathering (n=13) was the second most common form of evaluation, ranging from general usage and activity statistics (40, 43, 48, 50, 55, 57, 75, 79, 88, 95) to more specific forms of data gathering, such as tracking the number of related requests after a seminar (86), tracking the use of the services provided by a bioinformatics librarian (69), and tracking the YouTube views of instructional videos (57).

Other types of evaluations in the reported studies included surveys (n=7), interviews (n=2), post-workshop evaluations (n=2), focus groups (n=1), pre-post test (n=1), and not specified (n=1). One study, conducted by Minie et al. (82), administered a pre- and post-course evaluation for their Bioresearcher Tune-Up Course, a bioinformatics training course. Nine of the studies that reported an evaluation used multiple methods, including combining surveys and statistics (95), user satisfactions surveys and anecdotal feedback (83), and formal surveys, informal surveys, focus group discussions, and summary data (40).

Discussion

This scoping review maps a range of non-traditional services being reported by health sciences libraries to support researchers. While the services described may inspire ideas for new implementations, the proportionally small amount of rigorous evaluation present in the reports, and the fact that no critical appraisal was conducted on these studies, prevents us from being able to make any statement that the services contained herein necessarily model evidence-based practice. Despite these limitations, we have a number of observations from our review.

Among the reports, there was great variety in how health sciences libraries implemented and reported on their services. In some cases, services were introduced and provided by a single person, while in others the implementation was library-wide. In other cases, collaboration with non-library units helped shape new services. Among our included reports are services offered for or in conjunction with institutional review boards / ethics review boards (32, 40, 77), a faculty’s office of research (57), an institution’s information technology and administrative units (72), research committees (40, 78-80), and an animal care and use committee (81). Such collaborations can create synergies between libraries and other units to assist researchers more comprehensively than either unit can on its own.

Across implementations, the depth of services also varied. Whereas some libraries might stop at providing users information on a topic through an online guide, other libraries would provide workshops or personnel would work directly on research teams. We attempt to demonstrate this range of depth in a spectrum of service provision in Figure 3, where less time intensive activities (such as information provision or gathering) is shown on one end of the spectrum, and the more time intensive tasks (such as being a member of the research team and completing tasks) sits on the other. Libraries looking to implement new services may consider this spectrum as part of their implementation, by beginning with less intensive services to start and working towards more time-intensive services later, if warranted.

Fig. 3. Spectrum of Services

Figure 3

While the majority of services were provided for free (many did not report any fee structure, by which we make the assumption that there were none), a particularly interesting fee-based model was reported by the University of Alberta, where a highly in-demand long-standing embedded nursing librarian contract position was converted into a fee-for-service funded position when budget constraints threatened to cut the position (24, 25). The library at Penn State College of Medicine also implemented a cost recovery model for its systematic review services (48).

If we examine the broad service categories by frequency of publication, we see interesting temporal trends. For one, the creation of new positions to support researchers has been reported since the 1990’s and increased in frequency in the last 5 years, as health sciences libraries evolved roles to meet researcher needs (9). Descriptions of systematic review services increased as of 2009. This is in keeping with our experiences anecdotally as well as in the literature, since the systematic review has grown significantly in popularity in the last 10 years (96), as has recognition of librarians’ expertise as expert searchers (97-102). Grant support services were also frequently discussed beginning in 2010, reaching a peak in 2013, and demonstrating a small drop in frequency in the last 3 years. Similar trends were also noticed in research metrics.

Data management services were reported as early as 2002 (89), but the majority of publications are from the last 5 to 6 years. Given the increased interest in “Big Data” over the last 5 years, and technological and methodological developments in the area of data repositories and open data, it is understandable that data management services would be mentioned more frequently in recent history (103). This increase in interest is evident in Canada through the work of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) in their release of a white paper entitled “Research Data: unseen opportunities” in 2009 to aid academic libraries in discussing data management on campus and the roles of libraries in the process, as well as their launch of Portage in 2015, a national library-based research data management network (104, 105). In a more international scope, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) have released a data sharing statement that takes effect July 1st, 2018 (106). The data sharing statement policy provides guidance for ICMJE journals to ensure that the results of clinical trials contain data sharing plans and statements (106).

Since researchers have been grappling with data management issues for much longer than the last 5 years, it is noteworthy that data management services have only been reported more recently (107). Part of the reason could be that many libraries have developed expertise in data management only recently, as library personnel have become more frequently embedded within research teams and as digital datasets have become more common, cost-effective, and readily accessible to researchers (103, 107-109).

Research metrics, open access, and repository services have all been sporadically mentioned over the last 20 years in small numbers. Two reports of research metrics services were reported last year, although it remains to be seen whether this indicates an increase in those services being reported. In many academic library contexts in Canada, these areas of expertise fall under the role of Data Management and Scholarly Communications librarians, who often serve the entire university rather than specific research disciplines such as health sciences or sociology, providing one reason why these services may be underreported in this review. Likewise, in the international academic community, the conversation of data management and research metrics is a topic that is of concern and interest across many disciplines, not only in health sciences. Tools and documents like the Metric Tide (110) were developed with input from a variety of disciplines. Since our search was restricted to health sciences libraries, it could be that we did not capture reports of services in these domains or they were excluded during screening. Another possibility is that health librarians see providing or supporting research metrics as standard services–indeed similar services have been reported dating as far back as the 1970s (71), so it could be that we are instead seeing a revival and expansion of these services as granting agencies and universities require more proof of impact. This was the case as reported by Barnett and Keener (73), who identified that the library had been responsible for tracking faculty citations since 1977. While the partnership with the dean of the faculty had not changed, the information they collected had evolved over the years. Over time, the information collected was no longer for promotion, tenure, and informing the dean’s annual report for the department, but instead, details like PMCID, DOI links, and ties to grant information, research protocols, and funding data had emerged to facilitate research activities. Along the same lines, the Becker Medical Library Model for Assessment of Research Impact was launched in 2009 and revised in 2011 to provide a “framework for tracking the diffusion of research outputs and activities.”(111) This model has been discussed elsewhere in the health library literature but with a focus on the development of the tool and not on the library service component of the model (112).

By far, academic library contexts were the most represented amongst our included studies (n=56; 76%). Hospital libraries were less represented in our review (n=7; 9%); however, this may not necessarily indicate that hospital libraries are less interested in research service provision or are offering fewer services. Since there is some evidence that hospital librarians are less likely to undertake their own research, it is possible that such initiatives simply are not being published or presented at conferences (113,114). Special library service contexts are also rarely described (n=4; 5%). Articles such as Crum and Cooper (35) investigated emerging roles for biomedical librarians and found that “hospital/health facility librarians were less likely than academic librarians to indicate they had added or planned to add an emerging role.”(35) Further results from this paper indicated that lack of staffing could be the factor in hospital librarians being less likely to take on new roles (35).

Few authors reported conducting needs assessments as part of their service initiation (55, 62, 64). This was conducted either through surveys (55, 64) or a series of interactive activities with stakeholders (62). Fewer than half (n=35; 47%) of our included studies contain some form of evaluation. Of these evaluations, 48% (n=17) rely, either wholly or in part, on anecdotal or informal feedback. Because of this, future research examining the efficacy of these research services may be difficult; however, since reporting of services is so heterogeneous, such an examination would be challenging in any case. Studies that used more robust methods of evaluation, such as usage statistics, surveys, interviews, or a mix of these methods, were much less frequent. Given the amount of time and planning involved in launching new services or in pivoting existing services to better suit research patrons, future studies need to give greater weight to evaluation and include it as part of the program plan, providing not only information about innovative services, but also accurate measures of their implementation. While assessment is not a new concept in librarianship, its focus has changed. For many years, quantity and utilization of resources were of primary interest to librarians and management as metrics of success. As library services have become more specialized and external stakeholders have required more specific outcome measures, this data has become increasingly insufficient (115).

In order to address this gap, libraries have since examined a variety of aspects of service in order to demonstrate value and efficiency, from quality of service desk service, to satisfaction with a rapid search service and clinical library financial impact, to a variety of other methods (116-123).

In addition to measuring effectiveness of services, Urquhart et al. point out in their impact and assessment of health library services that exploring service weaknesses is also important in order to substantiate anecdotal observations of service issues by the library team as well as provide evidence or justification for launching or adjusting services (124).

Whether or not a formal evaluation is planned for a new service, considering its sustainability will certainly benefit libraries. In that vein, Beasley and Rosseel (24) proposed evaluating the sustainability of their service implementation in terms of cost and impact on human resources. Applying the principles of Lean, the University of Alberta John W. Scott Library created a model for their research support services that allowed them to offer only the services that their users were going to use (24). The University of Alberta is not the first to use Lean, as Beasley and Rosseel(24) point out, and a growing number of libraries are using Lean to evaluate the efficiency and viability of a wide variety of library services. Tying Lean to sustainability principles in the evaluation of library services may possibly allow for libraries to ensure they are answering the demands of their users, are not creating inefficient workflows, and are carefully examining the value-add of new initiatives (125). Sustainability is another window through which services can be explored to determine weaknesses and, in the era of shrinking library budgets, make best use of resources.

Limitations

Due to the heterogeneous application of research service evaluation, present in only half of the reports included in this review, a definitive statement can not be made on which services work best in which contexts, for whom, and why; however, we can point out interesting features and trends in services we have identified in the literature to inspire ideas and present cases of service implementation.

Additionally, given the nature of the service populations and institutions in the health sciences, with service populations having cross-appointments and clinical appointments, and institutions being university-affiliated hospitals, academic medical centres, and other overlapping functions, it was challenging at times to define the service population. We would have liked to report service provision at a more granular level (e.g. by population group); however, the overlap and blended service populations made it challenging to identify patterns about where research support services were taking place, and exactly who was being targeted.

With 80% (n=61) of the included studies coming from the United States, and with Canada, the United Kingdom, and South Africa representing the remaining 20% (n=9, n=5, n=1), there is a definite focus on research services and views from North America. From the concept of this project to publication, we have tried to be as comprehensive as possible; however, the North American focus in the literature concerned us. We would encourage others to explore and present or publish on their services and outcomes in other regions of the world.

Conclusion

This scoping review has identified main areas of non-traditional research support provided by health sciences libraries reported from 1990 through to 2017. Health sciences libraries looking to build on their own set of research services now have a collection of program descriptions, evaluations, and studies from which they can draw ideas and identify potential hurdles.

Acknowledgements

We thank Karine Fournier from the University of Ottawa Health Sciences Library for peer reviewing our search (merci Karine!). We also thank Stéphane Cloutier and Geneviève Morin from the University of Ottawa Health Sciences Library, as well as Echo Dyan, Nadine Day-Boutilier, and Kathy Eisan from the W.K. Kellogg Library at Dalhousie University for their assistance obtaining full-text articles for our review. Without all of you this review probably wouldn’t have made it. You’re all the best!

Statement of Competing Interests

No competing interests declared.

Appendix A : Medline Search Strategy

1 librarians/
2 exp libraries/
3 library science/
4 library services/
5 librar*.ti,ab,kw.
6 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5
7 research support as topic/
8 research personnel/
9 research/
10 (research* adj7 (service? or support or facilitat*)).ti,ab,kw.
11 (systematic review* adj7 (service? or support or facilitat*)).ti,ab,kw.
12 (synthes?s adj7 (service? or support or facilitat*)).ti,ab,kw.
13 (scholarly activit* adj7 (service? or support or facilitat*)).ti,ab,kw.
14 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13
15 biomedical.ti,ab,hw,kw.
16 medical.ti,ab,hw,kw.
17 clinical.ti,ab,hw,kw.
18 health.ti,ab,hw,kw.
19 medicine.ti,ab,hw,kw.
20 dental.ti,ab,hw,kw.
21 dentist*.ti,ab,hw,kw.
22 nurs$3.ti,ab,hw,kw.
23 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22
24 6 and 14 and 23

Appendix B : Google and Google Scholar Search Strategy

Search string Search engine
medical|biomedical|clinical|health|medicine|dental|nursing library|librarian research|synthesis|scholarly|"systematic review"|"data management" support|service|facilitation Google
medical|biomedical|clinical|health|medicine|dental|nursing library|librarian research|synthesis|scholarly|"systematic review"|"data management" support|service|facilitation Google Scholar
medical|biomedical|clinical|health|medicine|dental|nursing library|librarian research|synthesis|scholarly|"systematic review"|"data management" support|service|facilitation filetype:pdf Google
medical|biomedical|clinical|health|medicine|dental|nursing library|librarian research|synthesis|scholarly|"systematic review"|"data management" support|service|facilitation filetype:pdf Google Scholar
medical|"health sciences" library research|"systematic review" support|service|facilitation Google
medical|"health sciences" library research|"systematic review" support|service|facilitation Google Scholar
medical|"health sciences" library research|"systematic review" support|service|facilitation filetype:pdf Google
medical|"health sciences" library research|"systematic review" support|service|facilitation filetype:pdf Google Scholar
medical|biomedical|clinical|health|medicine|dental|nursing library|librarian research services Google
medical|biomedical|clinical|health|medicine|dental|nursing library|librarian research services Google Scholar
medical|biomedical|clinical|health|medicine|dental|nursing library|librarian “research services” Google
medical|biomedical|clinical|health|medicine|dental|nursing library|librarian “research services” Google Scholar

Appendix C : Supplementary files

Tab. A Included studies by Source

Source N=74
Journal of the Medical Library Association 20
Medical reference services quarterly 11
Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 5
ALISS Quarterly 3
Non-Journal (Grey Literature) 3
Health information and libraries journal 3
Journal of eScience Librarianship 3
Journal of Hospital Librarianship 3
Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association (JCHLA) 3
portal: Libraries & the Academy 2

1. Langner MC. User and user services in health sciences libraries: 1945-1965. Library trends. 1974;23(1):7-30.

2. Lorenzetti DL, Rutherford G. Information professionals' participation in interdisciplinary research: a preliminary study of factors affecting successful collaborations. Health Info Libr J. 2012;29:274-284.

3. Dalrymple PW, Dahlen KH, Stoddart J. Imperatives for Continuing Research Education - Results of a Medical-Library-Association Survey. Bull Med Libr Assoc.1992;80:213-218.

4. Davies NE. The National Library of Medicine and the American medical information system: the physician's perspective. Bull Med Libr Assoc.1986;74:333-338.

5. Atlas MC. The rise and fall of the medical mediated searcher. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000;88:26-35.

6. Brettle A. Systematic reviews and evidence based library and information Practice. Evid Based Libr Info Prac. 2009;4(1):43-50.

7. Florance V, Matheson NW. The health sciences librarian as knowledge worker. Library Trends. 1993;42(1):196-219.

8. Rankin JA, Grefsheim SF, Canto CC. The emerging informationist specialty: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Libr Assoc. 2008 Jul;96(3):194-206.

9. Cooper ID, Crum JA. New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: a systematic review, 1990-2012. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Oct;101(4):268-277.

10. Davidoff F, Florance V. The informationist: a new health profession? Ann Intern Med 2000 Jun 20;132(12):996-998.

11. Robison RR. Informationist education. Med Ref Serv Q. 2008;27:339-347.

12. Osterbur DL, Alpi K, Canevari C, Corley PM, Devare M, Gaedeke N, et al. Vignettes: Diverse library staff offering diverse bioinformatics services. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Jul;94(3):306, E188-91.

13. Cousins J, Perris K. Supporting research at the Faculty of Medicine: the development of Imperial College London's Medicine Information Literacy Group. J Info Lit. 2009;3:60-67.

14. Lyon L. Librarians in the Lab: Toward Radically Re-Engineering Data Curation Services at the Research Coalface. New Rev of Acad Librarianship. 2016;22:391-409.

15. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32.

16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009. Jul 21;6(7):e1000097.

17. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR). Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/

18. Clarviate Analytics. EndNote. 2018;X7.

19. Qatar Computing Research Institute (Data Analytics). Rayyan QCRI. Available from: https://rayyan.qcri.org/

20. Covidence. Available from: https://www.covidence.org/

21. Galipeau J, Moher D. Repository of ongoing training opportunities in journalology, WAME (World Association of Medical Editors). 2017. Available at:http://www.wame.org/about/repository-of-ongoing-training-opportunities

22. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. 2015; Available at: https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/grey-matters, 2017.

23. Bent MJ. Practical tips for facilitating research. London: Facet Publishing; 2016.

24. Beasley G, Rosseel T. Leaning into sustainability at University of Alberta Libraries. Libr Management 2016;37(3):136-148.

25. Kung J, Chambers T. Show me the money! Meeting researcher needs through a fee-based pilot project. Presented at: Northern Illumination/Lumières du Nord. Proceedings of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/Association des bibliothèques de santé du Canada, Annual conference; 2017 May 16-19; Edmonton, AB.

26. King J, Belter CW, Burns B, Davis M. Creating value at the National Institutes of Health. Information Services & Use 2016;36(1):73-80.

27. Whitmore SC, Grefsheim SF, Rankin JA. Informationist programme in support of biomedical research: a programme description and preliminary findings of an evaluation. Health Info Libr J. 2008;25(2):135-41.

28. Harris MR. The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: A case study. JMLA. 2005;93(1):81-87.

29. BDA library to assist with NICE research project. Br Dent J. 2014;216(12):662.

30. Henderson ME, Knott TL. Starting a Research Data Management Program Based in a University Library. Med Ref Serv. Q 2015;34(1):47-59.

31. Glenn E, Rolland B. Librarians in Biomedical Research: New Roles and Opportunities. Information Outlook. 2010;14(7):26-29.

32. Robinson JG, Gehle JL. Medical research and the Institutional Review Board: The librarian's role in human subject testing. Reference Services Review 2005;33(1):20-24.

33. Allee NJ, Blumenthal J, Jordan K, Lalla N, Lauseng D, Rana G, et al. One Institution's Experience in Transforming the Health Sciences Library of the Future. Med Ref Serv Q. 2014;33(1):1-16.

34. Banks MA. Defining the informationist: A case study from the Frederick L. Ehrman Medical Library. JMLA. 2006;94(1):5-7.

35. Crum JA, Cooper D. Emerging roles for biomedical librarians: a survey of current practice, challenges, and changes. JMLA. 2013;101(4):278-286.

36. Goode V, Anton B. Welch. Informationist collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Medicine Department of Radiology. Journal of eScience Librarianship. 2013;2:16-19.

37. Gore S. A Librarian by Any Other Name: The Role of the Informationist on a Clinical Research Team. Journal of eScience Librarianship. 2013;2:20-24.

38. Federer L. The librarian as research informationist: a case study. JMLA. 2013;101:298-302.

39. Mead TL, Richards DT. Librarian participation in meta-analysis projects. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1995;83(4):461-464.

40. Cheek FM. Research support in an academic medical center. Med Ref Serv Q. 2010;29(1):37-46.

41. Reeves T. Research Support Librarian at Imperial College London: the first year. SCONUL Focus. 2012;0(56):13-15.

42. Campbell S, Dorgan M. What to do when everyone wants you to collaborate: managing the demand for library support in systematic review searching. JCHLA/JABSC. 2015;36(1):11-19.

43. Lightfoot D, Epworth A, Friesen F, Thi CL, Lolova E, Morant B. Understanding and enhancing library services in support of systematic reviews. JCHLA/JABSC. 2015;36(2):88-88.

44. Blackstock M, Lipczynska S. Systematic review training for library users at King’s College London: the past, present and future. ALISS Quarterly. 2015;10:13-15.

45. Mi M. Leveraging research synthesis for promoting and expanding library services and educational programs. J Acad Libr. 2016;42(2):151-153.

46. Falconer J. Library support for systematic reviews at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. ALISS Quarterly. 2015;10(3):17-19.

47. Hardi AC, Fowler SA. Evidence-based medicine and systematic review services at Becker Medical Library. Mo Med. 2014;111(5):416-8.

48. Knehans A, Dell E, Robinson C. Starting a fee-based systematic review service. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016;35(3):266-73.

49. Ludeman E, Downton K, Shipper AG, Fu Y. Developing a library systematic review service: a case study. Med Ref Serv Q. 2015;34(2):173-80.

50. Mann M, Weightman A. Support unit for research evidence - supporting staff and students conducting systematic reviews. ALISS Quarterly. 2013;8(3):13-15.

51. Vaughan KTL, Hayes BE, McElfresh KR, Janes HH. Peer, partner, or service provider: identifying novel library liaison roles in academic health sciences. Presented at: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Annual Meeting; Kissimmee, FL; Jul 2012.

52. Fenichel CH, Murphy JJ, Barry JE. Information and communication services to support clinical research. Broadening the library system. Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association. 1994;0:875-875.

53. Means ML. The Research Funding Service: a model for expanded library services. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000;88(2):178-86.

54. Leman H. ScanGrants: A new service for libraries, a new role for librarians. Computers in Libraries. 2008;28(8):20-23.

55. Rosenzweig M, Smith JE, Curtis A, Puffenberger A. Simplifying the process for finding research funding: A cross-campus collaboration at a large academic institution. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016;35(1):52-63.

56. Johnson LM, Butler JT, Johnston LR. Developing e-science and research services and support at the University of Minnesota Health Sciences Libraries. J Libr Admin. 2012;52(8):754-769.

57. Black C, Harris B, Mahraj K, Schnitzer AE, Rosenzweig M. Collaboration between the University of Michigan Taubman Health Sciences library and the University of Michigan Medical School Office of Research. Med Ref Serv Q. 2013;32(2):179-84.

58. Holmes KL, Lyon JA, Johnson LM, Sarli CC, Tennant MR. Library-based clinical and translational research support. JMLA. 2013;101(4):326-35.

59. Janke R, Rush KL. The academic librarian as co-investigator on an interprofessional primary research team: a case study. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31(2):116-22.

60. Wilmes NA. Providing mobile librarian service to a College of Nursing to increase interactions and transactions: One Wayne State University, science and technology librarian's experience. Science & Technology Libraries. 2011;30(1):99-107.

61. Ipsaralexi Y, Jack C, Long S. Library support for a point-of-care research competition. JCHLA/JABSC. 2015;36(2):79.

62. Vaughan KT, Hayes BE, Lerner RC, McElfresh KR, Pavlech L, Romito D, et al. Development of the research lifecycle model for library services. JMLA. 2013;101(4):310-314.

63. Read KB, Surkis A, Larson C, McCrillis A, Graff A, Nicholson J, et al. Starting the data conversation: informing data services at an academic health sciences library. JMLA. 2015;103(3):131-5.

64. Li M, Chen YB, Clintworth WA. Expanding roles in a library-based bioinformatics service program: a case study. JMLA. 2013;101(4):303-309.

65. Chiware E, Mathe Z. Academic libraries' role in research data management services: a South African perspective. South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science. 2015;81(2):1-10.

66. Rambo N. Research data management roles for libraries. Ithaka. 2015. Available from:http://www.sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SR-Issue_Brief_Research_Data_Management_1022151.pdf

67. Helms AJ, Bradford KD, Warren NJ. Bioinformatics opportunities for health sciences librarians and information professionals. JMLA. 2004;92(4):489-493.

68. Holmes K. Translational research support and education: a critical role for medical libraries. Presented at the Science Translational Medicine Luncheon Special Libraries Association 2010 Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, on 15 June 2010.

69. Tennant MR. Bioinformatics librarian: meeting the information needs of genetics and bioinformatics researchers. Reference services review. 2005;33(1):12-19.

70. Hendrix D. Tenure metrics: bibliometric education and services for academic faculty. Med Ref Serv Q. 2010;29(2):183-9.

71. Bai S, Kelly P. Development of a web-based faculty publications database. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000;88:189-192.

72. Braun S. Supporting research impact metrics in academic libraries: A case study. portal: Libraries & the Academy. 2017;17(1):111-127.

73. Barnett MC, Keener MW. Expanding medical library support in response to the National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy. JMLA. 2007;95(4):450-3.

74. Burnette MH. The 'Research Audit' Model: A Prototype for Data-Driven Discovery of Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research. portal: Libraries and the Academy. 2015;15(4):645-659.

75. Koopman A, Kipnis D. Feeding the fledgling repository: Starting an institutional repository at an academic health sciences library. Med Ref Serv Q. 2009;28(2):111-122.

76. Watson LA, Login IS, Burns JM. Exploring new ways of publishing: A library-faculty partnership. JMLA. 2003;91(2):245-247.

77. Frumento KS, Keating J. The role of the hospital librarian on an institutional review board. Journal of Hospital Librarianship. 2007;7(4):113-120.

78. Ginex P, Hernandez M. Supporting clinical research at the bedside: A clinical librarian-nursing partnership. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2016;43(2):110-110.

79. Felber SH, Sylvanus TL, Wilson C, Kapoor R. Library and nursing research collaboration. Journal of Hospital Librarianship. 2006;6(3):19-30.

80. Macdonald K. Collaborative partnerships for library services: examples from a hospital library. Journal of Hospital Librarianship. 2015;15(4):365-372.

81. Steelman SC, Thomas SL. Academic health sciences librarians' contributions to institutional animal care and use committees. JMLA. 2014;102(3):215-9.

82. Minie M, Bowers S, Tarczy-Hornoch P. The University of Washington health sciences library bioCommons: an evolving Northwest biomedical research information support infrastructure. JMLA. 2006;94(3):321-329.

83. Raimondo PG, Harris RL, Nance M, Brown ED. Health literacy and consent forms: librarians support research on human subjects. JMLA. 2014;102(1):5-8.

84. Tattersall A, Beecroft C, Cantrell A. Using Web 2.0 tools to create customized research portals. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries. 2011;8(4):367-381.

85. Klem M, Saghafi E, Abromitis R, Stover A, Dew MA, Pilkonis P. Building PROMIS item banks: librarians as co-investigators. Quality of life research. 2009;18(7):881-8.

86. Chilov M, Matsoukas K. Library support for an academic medical center's institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) Poster presented at: MLA '05, 105th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; San Antonio, TX; 14–19 May.

87. Cheek FM, Bradigan PS. Academic health sciences library research support. JMLA. 2010;98(2):167-71.

88. Smith JE, Brandenburg MD, Conte ML, Song J. Innovative information service development: meeting the information needs of an interdisciplinary, cross-sector research complex. JMLA. 2014;102(1):8-13.

89. Florance V, Giuse NB, Ketchell DS. Information in context: integrating information specialists into practice settings. JMLA. 2002;90(1):49-58.

90. Hasman L, Berryman D. NLM informationist grant: web assisted tobacco intervention for community college students. Journal of eScience Librarianship. 2013;2:30-34.

91. Moore ME, Vaughan KTL, Hayes BE. Building a bioinformatics community of practice through library education programs. Med Ref Serv Q. 2004;23(3):71-79.

92. Song J. Health sciences libraries: synergistic partnerships. 2008. Available from: http://www.slideshare.net/umhealthscienceslibraries/hsl-synergistic-partnerships-430921

93. Harroun J, Hayes B, Monahan K, Vaughan KTL, Hemminger B, Vaidhyanathan V. Bioinformatics Research, Service, and Training (BIRST) Program: new horizons outreach to bioinformatics researchers within a university environment. 2008:6.

94. Pepper C, Carrigan E, Shurtz S, Foster MJ. Exploring librarian roles in support of one health. J Agric Food Inf. 2013;14(4):321-333.

95. Yarfitz S, Ketchell DS. A library-based bioinformatics services program. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000;88(1):36-48.

96. Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514.

97. Dudden RF, Protzko SL. The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian. Med Ref Serv Q. 2011;30(3):301-315.

98. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. 2011. Available at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx

99. Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One. 2015 May 4;10(5):e0125931.

100. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. JMLA. 2005 Jan;93(1):74-80.

101. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):617-626.

102. Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA. 2014 Sep 10;312(10):999-1000.

103. Maclachlan JC, Waraksa EA, Williford C. (eds). The Process of Discovery: The CLIR Postdoctoral Fellowship Program and the Future of the Academy. Washington: Council on Library and Information Resources; 2015. CLIR Publication No.167. Flores JR, Brodeur JJ, Daniels MG, Nicholls N, Turnator E. Libraries and the research data management landscape; p. 82-102. Available from: https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub167/

104. Shearer K. Research data: unseen opportunities. Ottawa(ON): Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL)/L’Association des Bibliothèques de Recherche du Canada (ABRC). 2009. 16p. Commissioned by CARL/ABRC Data Management Sub-Committee.

105. Portage Network (CARL/ABRC). About Portage. Available at: https://portagenetwork.ca/about/

106. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Data Sharing. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html#two

107. Gray SV, Hill E. The academic data librarian profession in Canada: history and future directions. Western Libraries Publications. 2016; Paper 49. Available from: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wlpub/49

108. Barbrow S, Brush D, Goldman J. Research data management and services: Resources for novice data librarians. College & Research Libraries News. 2017;78(5):274.

109. Brown RA, Wolski M, Richardson J. Developing new skills for research support librarians. The Australian Library Journal. 2015;64(3):224-234.

110. Wilsdon J, Allen L, Belfiore E, Campbell P, Curry S, et al. Responsible Metrics. 2015. Available at: https://responsiblemetrics.org/the-metric-tide/.

111. Bernard Becker Medical Library. Assessing the Impact of Research. Available at: https://becker.wustl.edu/impact-assessment/

112. Sarli C,C., Dubinsky E,K., Holmes K,L. Beyond citation analysis: a model for assessment of research impact. JMLA. 2010;98(1):17-23.

113. Campbell S, Hatch K, Torabi N. Identifying Research Support Needs of Members of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada. JCHLA/JABSC. 2018;39(1).

114. Lessick S, Perryman C, Billman BL, Alpi KM, De Groote SL, Babin TD,Jr. Research engagement of health sciences librarians: a survey of research-related activities and attitudes. JMLA. 2016 Apr;104(2):166-173.

115. Ackermann E. Program Assessment in Academic Libraries: An Introduction for Assessment Practitioners. Research & Practice in Assessment. 2007;2:18.

116. Deshmukh A, Roper T. An investigation into the feasibility of designing a framework for the quantitative evaluation of the Clinical Librarian service at an NHS Trust in Brighton, UK. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31(4):314-317.

117. Vaughn CJ. Evaluation of a new clinical librarian service. Med Ref Serv Q. 2009;28(2):143-153.

118. Joubert DJ, Lee TP. Empowering your institution through assessment. JMLA. 2007 Jan;95(1):46-53.

119. Blevins AE, DeBerg J, Kiscaden E. Assessment of service desk quality at an academic health sciences library. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016;35(3):285-293.

120. McGowan J, Hogg W, Rader T, Salzwedel D, Worster D, Cogo E, et al. A rapid evidence‐based service by librarians provided information to answer primary care clinical questions. Health Info Libr J. 2010;27(1):11-21.

121. Madden A, Collins P, McGowan S, Stevenson P, Castelli D, Hyde L, et al. Demonstrating the financial impact of clinical libraries: a systematic review. Health Info Libr J. 2016;33(3):172-189.

122. Brookman A, Lovell A, Henwood F, Lehmann J. What do clinicians want from us? An evaluation of Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust clinical librarian service and its implications for developing future working patterns. Health Info Libr J. 2006;23(s1):10-21.

123. Crossno JE, Berkins B, Gotcher N, Hill JL, McConoughey M, Walters M. Assessment of Customer Service in Academic Health Care Libraries (ACSAHL): an instrument for measuring customer service. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2001 Apr;89(2):170-176.

124. Urquhart C, Thomas R, Ovens J, Lucking W, Villa J. Planning changes to health library services on the basis of impact assessment. Health Info Libr J. 2010 Dec;27(4):277-285.

125. Nelson E. Using Six Sigma and Lean in the Library. College & Undergraduate Libraries. 2015;22(3-4):312-324.

Sarah Visintini. Berkman Library, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa ON (email: [email protected])

Mish Boutet. University of Ottawa Library, Ottawa ON

Alison Manley. Miramichi Regional Hospital, Horizon Health Network, Miramichi NB

Melissa Helwig. W.K.Kellogg Health Sciences Library, Halifax NS

Word count: 9675

Show less

© 2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Background:

As part of a health sciences library’s internal assessment of its research support services, an environmental scan and literature review were conducted to identify research services offered elsewhere in Canada. Through this process, it became clear that a more formal review of the academic literature would help libraries make informed decisions about their services. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of research services provided in health sciences libraries contexts.

Methods:

Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, LISTA, LISS, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Google for articles which described the development, implementation, or evaluation of one or more research support initiatives in a health sciences library context. We identified additional articles by searching reference lists of included studies and soliciting medical library listservs.

Results:

Our database searches retrieved 7134 records, 4026 after duplicates were removed. Title/abstract screening excluded 3751, with 333 records retained for full-text screening. Seventy-five records were included, reporting on 74 different initiatives. Included studies were published between 1990 and 2017, the majority from North American and academic library contexts. Major service areas reported were the creation of new research support positions, and support services for systematic review support, grants, data management, open access and repositories.

Conclusion:

This scoping review is the first review to our knowledge to map research support services in the health sciences library context. It identified main areas of research service support provided by health sciences libraries that can be used for benchmarking or information gathering purposes.

Details

Title
Research Support in Health Sciences Libraries: A Scoping Review
Author
Visintini, Sarah; Boutet, Mish; Manley, Alison; Helwig, Melissa
Pages
56-78
Section
Review Articles
Publication year
2018
Publication date
2018
Publisher
Canadian Health Libraries Association
e-ISSN
1708-6892
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
DOI
https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29366
ProQuest document ID
2350930896
Copyright
© 2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.