Lost in Translation: Supporting learners to search comprehensively across databases
AbstractAbstract: Introduction: Health sciences librarians play the key role of expert searcher for knowledge synthesis research projects. When students and trainees conduct systematic reviews as academic assignments, academic librarians train learners to search comprehensively for evidence in multiple sources. Description: The authors created an electronic toolkit with handouts and a video tutorial to support instruction on translating search strategies to various databases. Outcomes: The toolkit was well received by users, who provided constructive feedback and reported an increase in comfort with translating searches. Refinements based on the assessment results will improve the tools and supplemental resources will address some gaps in coverage. Most users still expressed the need to consult with a librarian for further training and review of their searches. Discussion: Trainees who need to conduct their own comprehensive searches for academic work will benefit from a variety of training tools to suit different levels of experience and learning styles. Electronic instructional resources such as handouts and videos can effectively supplement hands-on training and feedback from a health sciences librarian.
1. DiCenso A, Bayley L, Haynes RB. ACP journal club. Editorial: Accessing preappraised evidence: Fine-tuning the 5S model into a 6S model. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(6): JC3,2, JC3. doi:10.1136/ebn.12.4.99-b.
2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). More About Knowledge Translation at CIHR [Internet]. [cited 23 Mar 2015]. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033.html#Definition.
3. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. [Internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2006 [updated March 2011; cited 23 March 2015]. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
4. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews [Internet]. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. January 2014 [cited 23 Mar 2015]. Available from: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/60/318/CER-Methods-Guide-140109.pdf.
5. Finding what works in healthcare: Standards for systematic reviews [Internet] Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. March 2011 [cited 23 Mar 2015]. Available from: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews.aspx.
6. Medical Library Association. Role of expert searching in health sciences libraries: Policy statement by the Medical Library Association adopted September 2003. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):42–4.
7. Dudden RF, Protzko SL. The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian. Med Ref Serv Q. 2011;30(3):301–15. doi:10.1080/02763869.2011.590425.
8. Cooper ID, Crum JA. New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: a systematic review, 1990-2012. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013;101(4):268–77. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.008.
9. Heimlich LS. New and emerging roles for medical librarians. J Hosp Librarian. 2014;14(1):24–32. doi:10.1080/15323269.2014.859995.
10. Gore G, Cobus-Kuo L, Kloda LA. Research syntheses produced as graduate theses and doctoral dissertations: a scoping review. Canadian Health Libraries Association (CHLA) Annual Conference; 2014 Jun 16–20; Montreal QC. Available from: http://www.chla-absc.ca/conference/sessions/2013-research-syntheses-produced-graduate-theses-and-doctoral-dissertations-scoping-review.
11. Anderson K. Does the method of instruction matter? An experimental examination of information literacy instruction in the online, blended, and face-to-face classrooms. J Acad Librarian. 2010;36(6):495–500. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.08.005.
12. Schilling K, Applegate R. Best methods for evaluating educational impact: a comparison of the efficacy of commonly used measures of library instruction. JMLA. 2012;100(4):258. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.100.4.007.
13. Silk KJ, Perrault EK, Ladenson S, Nazione SA. The effectiveness of online versus in-person library instruction on finding empirical communication research. J Acad Librarian. 2015 Mar;41(2):149–54. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2014.12.007.
14. Anderson RP, Wilson SP, Livingston MB, LoCicero AD. Characteristics and content of medical library tutorials: A review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2008 Jan;96(1):61–3. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.96.1.61.
15. Anderson RP, Wilson SP, Yeh F, Phillips B, Livingston MB. Topics and features of academic medical library tutorials. Med Ref Serv Q. 2008;27(4):406–18. doi:10.1080/02763860802368217.
16. Befus R, Byrne K. Redesigned with them in mind: evaluating an online library information literacy tutorial. Urban Library Journal. 2011;17(1):1–26.
17. Foster MJ, Shurtz S, Pepper C. Evaluation of best practices in the design of online evidence-based practice instructional modules. JMLA. 2014;102(1):31. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.102.1.007.
18. Boden C, Neilson CJ, Seaton JX. Efficacy of screen-capture tutorials in literature search training: A pilot study of a research method. Med Ref Serv Q. 2013;32(3):314–27. doi:10.1080/02763869.2013.806863.
19. Niederstadt C, Droste S. Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: The need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Oct;26(4):450–7. doi:10.1017/S0266462310001066.
20. Tuttle BD, Isenburg Mv, Schardt C, Powers A. PubMed instruction for medical students: Searching for a better way. Med Ref Serv Q. 2009;28(3):199–210. doi:10.1080/02763860903069839.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.