Journal of EAHIL
Not a member yet
496 research outputs found
Sort by
How to develop a focused research question for a rapid evidence review
Full text linkRapid reviews are emerging as an alternative to systematic reviews, and they are now widely used to inform decision-making in healthcare. During COVID-19 pandemic, rapid reviews became more widespread. Some teams prepare reviews in a matter of days, instead of several weeks using streamlined systematic review methods. There are multiple roles for librarians within the evidence review process. As an expert searcher, the librarian must interact with the researchers, clinicians, and decision makers. A well-defined research question needs extreme specificity and preciseness which guides rest of the review. Developing a focused question workshop provided an overview of rapid review methods. Discussion and activities on developing a focused research question. How to start with broad topic and narrow it down to a question that is clear, relevant and answerable
Global equity in access to healthcare information: a call to action
Full text linkWe invite EAHIL colleagues to take 5 minutes to complete the survey on Universal access to reliable healthcare information(available in multiple languages), and to promote it within their organisations. Complete the survey: www.hifa.org/survey2023 [available until 30 September] Further information: https://www.hifa.org/projects/hifa-who-global-consultation-2023 - this includes a communication brief and promotional material
BISON: we\u27re in this together: building a Norwegian community of practice for librarians involved in work related to review articles
Full text linkLibrarians involved in assisting researchers with planning, execution and documentation of systematic literature searches are well aware of the considerable amount of practice required to conduct reliable, transparent, and reproducible literature searches. In addition to building the necessary skills and knowledge, factors such as changes in databases, updates in standards or methodologies, and development of new tools makes it difficult to keep up to date. In response an online community of practice has been established in Norway to serve as a platform for facilitating knowledge sharing in these areas. However, building and maintaining an active community is not an easy task. This article describes the development, the activities, the challenges, and the possible future for the community
Same search, different results: algorithm bias in various Discovery Tools in library search: GIDIF-RBM Monza (Italy) Working Group in collaboration with TDNet
Full text linkGIDIF-RBM (Italian Association of Health Librarians) in collaboration with TDNet Group performed a trial to test different discovery tools (DTs) functionalities. DTs represent the effect of that long digital revolution which, has upset the library universe as it was known up to that moment. Aim of the trial was to test two search queries: “cystic fibrosis”, “osteoarthritis AND “chondrocyte” AND “cell therapy” using PubMed, Google Scholar, Ebsco EDS, Ex Libris Summon, and TDNet Discover tools. The working group examined the first twenty-five results for each query to determine the quality of the results in each tool, using PubMed as a benchmark. The search analysis included an evaluation of quality of the journals ranking via Shimago SJR, the number of citations for each paper, the years of publication, and how many of the first 25 results were open access. Research findings indicate that DTs are powerful tools when managed consistently and holistically under team supervision. To make the best use of them, students and teachers must have information literacy skills, such as the ability to identify, evaluate, organize, use, and communicate information
Capacity building to boost information and communication skills inside an institute of research
Full text linkTo enhance its visibility, the Library of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) along with the Scientific Communication Unit of the same institution delivered a set of informal online training sessions, or webinars, on their fields of expertise: information retrieval, publication, effective communication, and research evaluation, specifically addressed to internal users. The collaboration was extremely useful in terms of improved knowledge on skills available among the personnel of these two services. It increased trust in the competencies of internal staff and at the same time it contributed to develop awareness of the value of the services rendered. Skills to use available online resources for training were improved as well as ISS staff cohesion favouring the development of new collaborations
Authorship position as a proxy for contextual knowledge: a preliminary case study
Full text linkCurrent health sciences literature is predominantly disseminated by, through and for Western scholars, resulting in underrepresentation of contextual knowledge in health policies worldwide. Commonly, this literature is evidence-based, build on principles of universality, neglecting and disregarding the importance of contextual and local expertise. Using a global health research question applied to three countries, Maastricht University Library’s collection was evaluated to explore the extent of contextual knowledge by authorship positions. Preliminary results showed that while Dutch articles had more local authors on first and/or last authorship positions compared to Bangladesh and Tanzania, they had no Dutch authors in middle positions, as opposed to Bangladesh and Tanzania (23% and 16%). This indicates a need for further understanding of geographic authorship position customs.
Key words: Global health; Information dissemination; Information sources; Health information exchange; Diversity, Equity, Inclusio
