Marie T. Ascher

Defining the Medical Library Association research agenda: methodology and final results from a consensus process.

OBJECTIVE Using a group consensus methodology, the research sought to generate a list of the twelve to fifteen most important and answerable research questions in health sciences librarianship as part of a broader effort to implement the new Medical Library Association (MLA) research policy. METHODS The delphi method was used. The committee distributed a brief survey to all estimated 827 MLA leaders and 237 MLA Research Section members, requesting they submit what they considered to be the most important and answerable research questions facing the profession. The submitted questions were then subjected to 2 rounds of voting to produce a short list of top-ranked questions. RESULTS The survey produced 62 questions from 54 MLA leaders and MLA Research Section members, who responded from an estimated potential population of 1,064 targeted colleagues. These questions were considered by the process participants to be the most important and answerable research questions facing the profession. Through 2 rounds of voting, these 62 questions were reduced to the final 12 highest priority questions. CONCLUSION The modified delphi method accomplished its desired survey and consensus goals. Future survey and consensus processes will be revised to generate more initial questions and to distill a larger number of ranked prioritized research questions.

The new Medical Library Association research agenda: final results from a three-phase Delphi study

The Medical Library Association’s (MLA’s) 2007 research policy statement [1] charged the MLA Research Section with defining the MLA research agenda on a recurring basis [2]. In 2008, the MLA Research Section’s Research Agenda Committee used a group consensus technique known as the Delphi method that involved both researchers and leaders to articulate MLA’s twelve highest priority research questions. The MLA Board adopted these twelve questions as the 2008 MLA research agenda. A subsequent article reporting these top twelve questions includes detailed description of the committee’s research methodology [3]. Following several months of deliberation and in consultation with the MLA Board of Directors, the MLA Research Section’s Executive Committee directed the Research Agenda Committee to conduct a new study during 2011, implementing the adaptations recommended in the previous report [4], while upgrading the methodology to improve the answerability of the questions. Although only a few years had passed, it also seemed possible that rapid technological changes and emerging societal conditions would produce a different set of top-ranked research questions. These deliberations led to important changes from the 2008 Delphi study. The 2008 study had generated two questions that were so lengthy and sprawling in their subject coverage that they would have been nearly impossible to answer, requiring that the authors strictly enforce a sixty-word limit during 2011. While the 2008 study had merged the MLA leaders and all members of the MLA Research Section into a single study population, the authors decided against including all Research Section members during 2011, because Research Section membership might reflect support for the research endeavor or a desire to learn more about research rather than actual research experience. Those Research Section members with research experience would be difficult to identify easily. A year after the 2008 study, the authors coincidentally learned of a concurrent 2008 Delphi method process that a team of Swedish researchers implemented for defining the research agenda for all Swedish librarians [5]. The authors otherwise know of no other Delphi method studies on defining a research agenda in librarianship, although, as indicated in the 2008 study report [3], this method has been used by other professions to define their research agendas.

Baseline Assessment of Public Health Informatics Competencies in Two Hudson Valley Health Departments

Information technology has the capability to improve the way public health is practiced. Realization of this potential is possible only with a workforce ready to utilize these technologies. This project team assessed informatics competencies of employees in two county departments of health. The goal was to determine the status quo in terms of informatics competencies by surveying current levels of proficiency and relevance, and identify areas of needed training. A survey was adapted from the recommendations of a Working Group document by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and administered to all employees in the two health departments. Respondents evaluated proficiency and relevance for each of 26 recommended competencies. A gap score was generated between these two measures; results were compared to the recommendations of the Working Group. The following data for each job level are presented: mean gap scores by competency class; the percentage of respondents demonstrating a gap in the competencies reported to be most relevant; and the percentage of respondents meeting the target recommendations of the Working Group. The percentage of respondents who reached the targets was low in higher-level staff. And overall, employees reported low levels of relevance for most of the competencies. The average public health employee does not feel that prescribed informatics competencies are relevant to their work. Before the public health system can take advantage of information technology, relevant employee skills should be identified or developed. There needs to be a shift in thinking that will recognize the promise of information technology in everyday work.

A Study in Usability: Redesigning a Health Sciences Library's Mobile Site

A mobile site redesign was conducted at a medium-sized academic health sciences library with the goal of creating a site that meets the mobile information needs of its users. The redesign phases included (1) needs assessment, (2) usability testing, and (3) site design. The survey results showed that Apple devices were the most prevalent; the most desirable activities performed on a mobile site were searching for articles, accessing full-text articles and e-books, searching databases, and searching the catalog. These activities guided the development of the usability testing tasks and the redesign. All phases were completed within six months, and the total project cost was

Information outreach to a local public health department: a case study in collaboration

50 for incentive purchases.

Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project

The delivery of essential public health services depends on the effective use of relevant information by public health employees [1, 2]. Yet, despite the importance of information to the practice of public health, the complex information needs of the public health workforce are not well met [3–8]. This paper describes how the New York Medical College Health Sciences Library and School of Public Health (NYMC) and the New York Academy of Medicine (NYAM) successfully collaborated in collecting data for two separate projects that addressed the information needs of employees in the Dutchess County Department of Health (DCDOH) in New Yorks Hudson Valley. NYAM additionally partnered with researchers at Columbia University in the Department of Biomedical Informatics and School of Nursing. Each project required all DCDOH employees to fill out a lengthy survey, and some data elements were common to both surveys. Both projects were funded by the National Network of Libraries of Medicine with the charge that the projects “collaborate when appropriate” because they targeted the same population. DCDOH welcomed the collaboration because it reduced the response burden for its employees.

Asked and answered--online: how two medical libraries are using OCLC's QuestionPoint to answer reference questions.

Objectives The Medical Library Association (MLA) Systematic Review Project aims to conduct systematic reviews to identify the state of knowledge and research gaps for fifteen top-ranked questions in the profession. In 2013, fifteen volunteer-driven teams were recruited to conduct the systematic reviews. The authors investigated the experiences of participants in this large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to answering priority research questions and fostering professional growth among health sciences librarians. Methods A program evaluation was conducted by inviting MLA Systematic Review Project team members to complete an eleven-item online survey. Multiple-choice and short-answer questions elicited experiences about outputs, successes and challenges, lessons learned, and future directions. Participants were recruited by email, and responses were collected over a two-week period beginning at the end of January 2016. Results Eighty (8 team leaders, 72 team members) of 198 potential respondents completed the survey. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated that the MLA Systematic Review Project should be repeated in the future and were interested in participating in another systematic review. Team outputs included journal articles, conference presentations or posters, and sharing via social media. Thematic analysis of the short-answer questions yielded five broad themes: learning and experience, interpersonal (networking), teamwork, outcomes, and barriers. Discussion A large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to performing systematic reviews shows promise as a model for answering key questions in the profession and demonstrates the value of experiential learning for acquiring synthesis review skills and knowledge. Our project evaluation provides recommendations to optimize this approach.