McTavish Jill
London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada.
Health Info Libr J. 2017 Mar;34(1):45-57. doi: 10.1111/hir.12167. Epub 2017 Jan 1.
The principles of evidence-based medicine have been critiqued by the 'caring' professions, such as nursing and social work, and evidence-informed medicine has been proposed as a more client-centred, integrative approach to practice. The purpose of this study was to explore how Canadian health science librarians who serve nurses and allied health professionals define good service and how they negotiate evidence-based principles in their searching strategies.
Twenty-two librarians completed a 30 minute, semi-structured phone interview about strategies for providing good service and supporting evidence-based services. Participants were also asked to respond to three challenging search scenarios. Analysis of results used grounded theory methods.
Participants' definitions of good service and strategies for supporting evidence-based practice involved discussions about types of services provided, aspects of the librarian providing the service and aspects of the information provided during the service. Analysis of search scenarios revealed four justifications librarians rely upon when providing evidence that is in opposition to what their patron hopes to receive (evidentiary, ethical, practice-based and boundaries of the profession).
The findings of this study suggest that health science librarians are both constrained and enabled by the principles of evidence-based medicine and especially by understandings of 'best evidence'.
循证医学的原则受到了护理和社会工作等“关怀”专业的批评，而循证知情医学被提议作为一种更以客户为中心的综合实践方法。本研究的目的是探讨为护士和健康专业人员提供服务的加拿大健康科学图书馆员如何定义优质服务，以及他们在搜索策略中如何协调循证原则。
22名图书馆员完成了一次30分钟的半结构化电话访谈，内容涉及提供优质服务和支持循证服务的策略。参与者还被要求应对三种具有挑战性的搜索场景。结果分析采用扎根理论方法。
参与者对优质服务的定义以及支持循证实践的策略涉及对所提供服务类型、提供服务的图书馆员的方面以及服务期间提供的信息的方面的讨论。对搜索场景的分析揭示了图书馆员在提供与客户希望获得的证据相反的证据时所依赖的四种理由（证据性、道德性、基于实践和专业界限）。
本研究结果表明，健康科学图书馆员受到循证医学原则的限制，尤其是受到对“最佳证据”的理解的限制，同时也受到这些原则的推动。
