Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. What is it? What’s in it for you? How can it work? ISKO UK Conference 2013, 9 th July 2013 Dr Alison Brettle University of Salford , Editor-in-Chief Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Journal.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
What is it? What’s in it for you? How can it work?
ISKO UK Conference 2013, 9th July 2013
Dr Alison Brettle
University of Salford, Editor-in-Chief Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Journal
To undertake a systematic review on clinical librarianship – specifically on evaluating clinical librarian services
To provide a group of librarians with the opportunity to develop skills in research and systematic reviews
Systematic review methodology
But on a group basis
Evaluation of the process of undertaking the review
Post it exercises
Group discussion (taped and transcribed)
Analysis of the time spent undertaking the review
Group responsibility for project – facilitator/mentor
Originally to discuss, plan and set tasks
Later to undertake tasks on the review
Public deadlines (conference presentations and papers)
Working in pairs
Elements of review undertaken in pairs – as a quality control, more importantly to build confidence
Web based group communication tools (Grouploop and project wiki)
Communicate and store documents
Part funded by strategic library unit
Impact – there is limited evidence that CLs
Save health professionals time
Positive effect on clinical decision making
Impact on patient care - diagnosis and the choice of intervention
Some recent Improvement can be seen in the reporting of samples and response rates, more work required on data collection and analysis
To undertake a multi-method evaluation study on the impact of Clinical Librarian (CL) services in the North West health region.
To use a framework that ensures consistent and robust data is collected across all Trusts, providing an increased body of evidence
To test the use of the MAP (Making Alignment a Priority) Toolkit in ensuring that evaluations meet organisational objectives
To build research capacity amongst a group of clinical librarians
Managed by experienced researcher
Invited to participate at various levels
Training and support provided
10 CLs, representing 16 Trusts
Mixed methods qualitative and quantitative
Interviews – complex services
No contribution, has contributed, may contribute
Respected, established, strong evidence base
Numerous disciplines, sectors, service and market research,
Library and Information research
‘robust’ and ‘tried and trusted method of demonstrating impact’ (Bryant and Gray, 2006)
‘a sound methodological basis for library and information research’ (Hughes et al., 2007)
17 recent studies
Impact of a particular incident
Focused, accurate (Urquhart, 2001) less subject to recall bias, tangible
Can you identify the key drivers for change that are influencing your NHS organisation and its decision making?
Do you want to demonstrate how your library service is aligned to the priorities of the NHS?
Do you need help critically highlighting how your library adds value and impacts upon organisational change, policy and practice?
Improved quality of life for patient or carers
DOH Business Plan 2011-15, Impact indicator, p.32.
Improved Healthcare Outcomes
Liberating the NHS, 2010, pp.21-22 & 6.7, p.49; DOH Business Plan, Coalition priority 2, p.2 & pp.11-13
Increased patient involvement / Shared decision making
Liberating the NHS, 2010, 4.a, p.3 & 2.1-4, p.13; DOH Business Plan 2011-15, Action 1.5; NHS Constitution 2009, Principle 4, p.3, patient and public right, p.7; Operating Framework 2011-12, pp.7&24; An Information Revolution, 2010 ; Hill Report, 2008, Purpose 1; CQUIN National Goals 2011-2012, Goal 2;.
Improved patient care experience
Liberating the NHS, 2010, 4.a, p.3 & 2.1-4, p.13; DOH Business Plan 2011-15, Action 1.3.i, p7-8; NHS Constitution 2009, Value, Improving lives, p.16; Operating Framework 2011-12, 2 of 5 mechanisms, p.23.;CQUIN National Goals 2011-2012, Goal 2; Monitor’s Compliance Framework 2011-12, quality measure for statement of certification.
Improved patient access to information
Liberating the NHS, 2010, pp13 -16; DOH Business Plan 2011-15, Action 1.3., pp.7-8; NHS Constitution 2009, Patient and Public Right p.10; An Information Revolution, 2010; Monitor’s Compliance Framework 2011-12, p.49.
incident – after 6 weeks
who can find or
Based on best
Assessing the impact of evidence summaries in library & information studies:A mixed methods approach
Alison Brettle, PhD, University of Salford
Lorie Kloda, PhD, McGill University, Canada
Denise Koufogiannakis, MA, MLIS, University of Alberta, Canada
Gap between research and practice in library and information studies (LIS)
(Booth, 2003; Crowley, 2005; Genoni, Haddow, & Ritchie, 2004; Turner, 2002)
Only method likely to improve communication is “inclusion of research reports in (…) publications frequently read by practitioners.”(Haddow & Klobas, 2004)
Importance of communicating with the target audience to improve impact of research (RiLIES project, 2012)
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice journal, 2006-
>200 evidence summaries
objective – design – setting – subjects – method – main results – conclusion
To investigate the impact of evidence summaries on library and information professionals and their practice
Phase 1Development and face-validation of tool
Phase 2Survey questionnaire to readers (QUANT)
Phase 3Interviews (QUAL)
Number of Evidence Summaries Read in Past Year
No. of respondents
Reason for Reading Evidence Summary
“You reported: My practice was (will be) improved. What did you (will you) do differently
after reading the Evidence Summary?”
Potential Impacts Uncovered