John Pell

Beyond Satisfaction: Understanding and Promoting the Instructor-Librarian Relationship.

This article reports upon the assessment and research activities undertaken by a research group of faculty librarians at Hunter College regarding the perceptions, awareness, and usage of library services by non-librarian faculty members. Given the initial directive to measure faculty satisfaction with library services, the research group developed an ongoing action-research protocol to pursue more meaningful assessments of faculty awareness and use of library services and resources. The researchers employed both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, gathering data through informal information groups with faculty members and through an online survey measuring faculty awareness of library resources and services (Faculty Awareness of Library Services (FALS)). The findings show that while Hunter faculty value relational engagement with the library, they are more frequently aware of non-relational, self-service library resources. Further, the data suggest that tenured faculty members are aware of library services at a higher rate than tenure-track faculty. This data forms the foundation of an on-going action-research protocol to assess long-term trends, the products of which will continue to inform faculty services, outreach, and programming.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on stroke.

BACKGROUND The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from stroke attributable to exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. OBJECTIVES We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to long working hours (called Systematic Review 1 in the protocol) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of long working hours on stroke (called Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. DATA SOURCES Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsychINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of relevant levels of occupational exposure to long working hours (i.e. 35-40, 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 2005-2018. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of a relevant level of long working hours on the incidence of or mortality due to stroke, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. 35-40 h/week). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017060124.

Teaching Systematic Searching Methods to Public Health Graduate Students: Repeated Library Instruction Sessions Correlate With Better Assignment Scores

Abstract Objective – The objective of this study was to devise an assessment plan to determine if repeat attendance at two library instruction sessions is statistically associated with overall assignment scores or specific assignment qualities. Methods – The author used SPSS to calculate correlations between attendance and assignment scores and cross tabulations between attendance and assignment item analysis scores. Results – Repeat attendance at two library instruction sessions was statistically associated with higher overall assignment scores and higher scores on specific assignment sections. The effect is statistically significant. Conclusion – Students who attended two library instruction sessions applied skills and concepts practiced in those sessions on a subsequent research assignment. Not all skills and concepts practiced in the session were applied. Acquisition of more technical skills such as Boolean searching may require a greater number of follow-up sessions.