Applying the Evidence

1. Applying the Evidence Where to Now?

2. The Story So Far…. Back to the FOLIO EBLIP-Gloss Course: • So far we have ASKed the question “What evidence is there that Information Clinics are providing the same level of tuition or better than the traditional one-to-one format?” • We have ACQUIREd some evidence looking at different group sizes and their subsequent use of skills. • We have APPRAISEd the evidence using the RELIANT Checklist.

3. How do we APPLY the evidence • Ideally we would like Evidence that is Directly Applicable. However more commonly we will encounter Evidence that needs to be Locally Validated, perhaps through a survey or audit of local services. In our general reading we will encounter Evidence that Improves Understanding.(Koufogiannakis and Crumley, 2004) • A final category of useful material is Evidence that may inform our Choice of Methodologies, Tools or Instruments (Booth, 2004)

4. As Koufogiannakis and Crumley state: • “"When using research to help with a question, look for high quality studies, but do not be too quick to dismiss everything as irrelevant. Try to take what does apply from the research and use it to resolve the problem at hand" (Koufogiannakis and Crumley, 2004)

5. In our case… • The study we found (Ayre, 2006) has a good match (Directly Applicable) to some of our target population (part-time NHS employees). However we need to investigate whether it applies equally to our full-time international students (Locally Validated) • Undoubtedly it Improves our Understanding of issues relating to local versus centralised delivery of information skills training. • The investigation of “subsequent use” is an interesting Choice of Methodology. However we would probably choose to investigate additional outcomes (e.g. skills acquisition). This will require identification of an alternative/additional Tool.

6. When considering Applicability think SCOPE • Severity – How urgent/important is the problem? • Clients – Does the planned intervention fit with the values, needs and preferences of my users? • Opportunity – Is now the time to apply this? Has the situation changed since the evidence was produced? • Politics – Is there local support for this intervention? • Economics – Can we afford this intervention? Will this be at the expense of something else?

7. We now apply the SCOPE approach to our question

8. Severity • Numbers of Masters students are increasing • It will become prohibitive on staff-time to attempt to train all in one-to-one sessions • However not all will require one-to-one training • We will need to continue to offer one-to-one training • Therefore it is not necessarily a choice of “one NOT the other”. • More a case of “appropriateness”

9. Clients • Some students prefer personalised topic-specific attention of one-to-one training • Others prefer anonymity of small group training • We need more local information on cultural issues • We have identified a gap in our knowledge prior to implementation • Library staff find it more time-efficient to train small groups BUT generally believe one-to-one training to be more “effective” (anecdotal)

10. Opportunity • The evidence is up-to-date and reflects current practice • Now is a good time to pilot this because we have resources to run group clinics and one-to-one training in parallel • However one potential alternative is e-learning which allows students to learn at own time and pace (perhaps with tutorial assistance)

11. Politics • Staff on the Masters (MPH) course welcome the clinics initiative as a systematic provision for their students promoting equity • Full extent of one-to-one training is almost “invisible” to the organisation at present • Information officers also support research and consultancy – may become more “available” if they can channel their one-to-one audience towards scheduled clinics

12. Economics • Each clinic involves 2 information officers for up to 2 hours (Compare 1 information officer for 1 hour for one-to-one sessions) • If equally effective then need at least 4 participants per clinic to “break even” (4 person hours) although students will be receiving more intensive input • One-to-one training takes place in Library (taking up a library PC) whereas clinics use computer lab (currently free but may deny other students access during clinics)

13. Summary • There is not sufficient evidence to favour one intervention over the other at present • However need to know more about student preferences and (especially) relative effectiveness • SUGGESTED ACTION: Administer pre- and post-tests to students after clinics and one-to-one sessions and compare score increases. Survey students on preferences.

14. Resources • View the Applicability Checklist from the Libraries Using Evidence Toolkit www.eblip.net.au/toolkit/docs/Applicability%20Checklist.pdf • This covers: User Group, Timeliness, Cost, Politics and Severity

15. References • Ayre S (2006) Workplace-based information skills outreach training to primary care staff Health Information and Libraries Journal 23 (s1), 50–54. • Booth A (2004) What research studies do practitioners actually find useful? Health Information and Libraries Journal 21 (3), 197–200. • Koufogiannakis D & Crumley E (2004) Applying evidence to your everyday practice in Booth A & Brice A (2004). Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals: a handbook. London, Facet. Chapter10 pp.119-126