Associate Librarian, Leslie and Irene Dube Health Sciences Library, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Lillian Hetrick Huber Endowed Director, Health Sciences Library; Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; and Assistant Professor in Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Health Sciences and Practice; New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY.
J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jul;106(3):284-293. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.286. Epub 2018 Jul 1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
医学图书馆协会(MLA)系统评价项目旨在进行系统评价,以确定该专业 15 个排名靠前的问题的知识现状和研究差距。2013 年,招募了 15 个志愿者驱动的团队来进行系统评价。作者调查了参与者在这种大规模、志愿者驱动的方法中的经验,以回答优先研究问题并促进健康科学图书馆员的专业成长。
通过邀请 MLA 系统评价项目团队成员完成一份 11 项的在线调查,进行了项目评估。多项选择题和简答题询问了关于产出、成功和挑战、经验教训以及未来方向的经验。通过电子邮件招募参与者,从 2016 年 1 月底开始,在两周的时间内收集回复。
198 名潜在受访者中有 80 名(8 名团队负责人,72 名团队成员)完成了调查。84%的受访者表示,MLA 系统评价项目应该在未来重复进行,并有兴趣参与另一次系统评价。团队产出包括期刊文章、会议演讲或海报以及通过社交媒体分享。对简答题的主题分析产生了五个广泛的主题:学习和经验、人际关系(网络)、团队合作、成果和障碍。
大规模、志愿者驱动的系统评价方法有望成为回答专业关键问题的模型,并展示了体验式学习对于获取综合审查技能和知识的价值。我们的项目评估提供了优化这种方法的建议。