Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l'Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada A forum for the provision of increased communication among health libraries and health sciences librarians. en-US <p><span>Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:</span></p><p>Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a <a href="">Creative Commons Attribution License</a> that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.</p> (Erin Watson) (Erin Watson) Mon, 04 May 2020 11:47:22 -0600 OJS 60 Editor's message Erin Watson Copyright (c) 2020 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:22:24 -0600 Can database-level MEDLINE exclusion filters in Embase and CINAHL be used to remove duplicate records without loss of relevant studies in systematic reviews? An exploratory study <p><em>Objective: </em>To investigate whether using database filters to remove MEDLINE results within Embase (OVID) and CINAHL (EBSCO) would result in fewer records, without leading to any loss of studies included in the final review.</p> <p><em>Methods: </em>We reviewed the included studies from a sample set of 20 Cochrane Reviews, and replicated the search strategies from those reviews in MEDLINE, Embase (both on the OVID platform) and CINAHL (EBSCO). Results were exported to EndNote; then relevant MEDLINE filters were applied within each database, and results were exported again. Filtered results were analysed to determine whether the filtered Embase and CINAHL results excluded relevant studies that were not identified in the original MEDLINE search.&nbsp;</p> <p><em>Results: </em>Using the “Records from: Embase” filter resulted in no loss of included studies; however, the “Exclude MEDLINE journals” filter in Embase resulted in a failure to retrieve a large number of relevant studies. CINAHL’s filter for MEDLINE records resulted in a very small number of studies being lost.</p> <p><em>Conclusions: </em>The “Records from: Embase” filter may be safely used for deduplication, though as it removes conferences, searchers may also want to review Conference abstracts separately using the Conferences filter. CINAHL’s MEDLINE filter comes with a small risk of filtering out relevant studies, but may be appropriate to use. Though we did not set out to address this question, our results also demonstrate that it is not advisable to rely on an unfiltered search of Embase alone in order to identify all relevant studies.</p> Zahra Premji, Heather Ganshorn Copyright (c) 2020 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 Mise à jour et évaluation du programme de formation documentaire d’une bibliothèque de santé universitaire <p><strong>Introduction :</strong> This paper describes the evolution of a library instruction programme originally described by "Author" et al. [1]. Information literacy workshops will be analyzed individually in order to map their relevance to each of the frames from <em>ACRL's Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Educatio</em>n and to identify eventual gaps in the framework's coverage.</p> <p><strong>Description :</strong> Five new curriculum-integrated workshops and two new walk-in workshops have been designed. Several modifications have been applied to existing workshops. In particular, learning assessment is now almost totally performed online and is more frequently linked to coursework.</p> <p><strong>Outcomes :</strong> In 2018-2019, the programme comprised 172 activities for a total of 304 hours, reaching 6 651 participants. Virtual instruction (guides, tutorials and videos) is more developed than was previously reported. Framework frames 1 (<em>Authority is Constructed and Contextual</em>) and 5 (<em>Scholarship as Conversation</em>) are less covered. Frame 6 (<em>Searching as Strategic Exploration</em>) is the most addressed.</p> <p><strong>Discussion : </strong>The information literacy programme is more curriculum-integrated than in 2011-2012, but a formal evaluation of long-term learning outcomes as well as the reinforcement of knowledge through several sessions over time should be considered. More workshops could be offered to graduate students, who are especially targeted by frames 4 (<em>Research as Inquiry</em>) and 5 (<em>Scholarship as Conversation</em>).</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Cynthia Gagné, Natalie Clairoux Copyright (c) 2020 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 Book Review - The Culture of Digital Scholarship Cari Merkley Copyright (c) 2020 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 Librarian’s Guide to Writing for Professional Publication <p>Many books and articles have been written on the topic of ‘writing for librarians’. Some of these publications focus on improving the quality of writing , while others aim to support the librarian’s scholarly work, from the inception of an idea through to publication. <em>Librarian’s Guide to Writing for Professional Publication</em>&nbsp;provides an excellent foundation in writing, as well as guidance on using templates for structuring work-related documents and written communications.&nbsp;</p> Andrea McLellan Copyright (c) 2020 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 How to Write and Get Published Amanda L Caputo Copyright (c) 2020 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600 Product Review: Steelcase Brody <p>As libraries are renovated to create more flexible spaces for collaboration and for new services, research shows that productivity can decline in open format workspaces. Often libraries are trying to find a balance in the same room between loud, group spaces and quiet, individual study. The Steelcase Furniture Company has created the Brody model to fit this dichotomy.&nbsp;</p> Sandra Standish Copyright (c) 2020 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0600