Background: Games are a promising way to make health sciences education more engaging and improve synthesis for learners. There have been some successful implementations of game-based learning for health sciences library instruction [1], but there is room for development of games tailored specifically for teaching database searching skills to health sciences students. Case Presentation: The authors developed a biomedical edition of the existing library instruction card game Search&Destroy. The original Search&Destroy was developed as an alternative way to teach a one-shot instructional session on search skills using a discovery layer in an academic library for undergraduates. The biomedical edition modified the game to work with PubMed and incorporate health science-specific searching skills. Keyword cards were updated with biomedical terms and new cards were added with filters and actions related to health sciences literature searching (e.g., last five years, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials filters). The new version was play tested internally by the authors and then piloted in classes with nurse residents. The game is now available through the print-on-demand service The Game Crafter and teaching materials are available online. Conclusions: Feedback from our pilot test group of nurse residents was overwhelmingly positive. Informal conversations with nurse educators responsible for the program were also positive, and the game has been incorporated in the curriculum for the future. The Biomedical Edition joins a growing family of Search&Destroy games designed for a variety of library instruction needs.
Systematic reviews are frequently used to ask and answer causal questions, and decisions made throughout the review process can introduce bias because of the causal relationships between variables of interest, even when the question being asked is not itself causal. However, current systematic review best practices do not consider most of these impacts. The author presents an introduction to the basic principles and terminology of causal inference as apply to systematic reviews and discusses how some simple causal inference concepts can be used to create clearer and less biased research questions, search strategies, eligibility criteria, and data analysis. By taking into account confounder and collider bias, and by paying careful attention to the differences in assumptions made in intervention- and non-intervention-based reviews, health science librarians can aid systematic review teams in minimizing the risk of bias, and in appropriately analyzing and assessing that risk.
Objective: The objective of this study was to determine if health sciences library workers were aware of informed consent best practices and standards for the publication of medical images and if they incorporated the recommendations into their professional work. Methods: A survey was developed by the authors to determine awareness and incorporation of informed consent best practices and standards for the publication of medical images. The survey was distributed via listservs of professional librarian associations in the United States. The results of the survey were tabulated in RStudio. Fisher’s Exact Test was carried out to determine if awareness of informed consent influenced job responsibilities. Results: A total of 91 respondents were included in the data analysis with all respondents reporting multiple responsibilities (instructional, collections, and/or digital initiatives). While the majority of library workers (59%) were aware of the best practices and standards, few (6.6%) incorporated the recommendations into their professional work. Over 50% of librarians with instructional responsibilities, over 70% of librarians with collections responsibilities, and over 60% of librarians with digital initiative responsibilities were aware of the recommendations but did not incorporate the recommendations into their job duties. Conclusions: The professional work of health sciences library workers does not appear to include a significant incorporation of informed consent best practices and standards for the publication of medical images. There is a need for future research to better understand how library workers can better incorporate their knowledge of informed consent recommendations into their work.
Background: As digital audiobooks gain popularity among the general public, academic health sciences libraries have the opportunity to provide access to supplemental nonfiction titles in this format which while often found in public libraries has not been traditionally offered in this setting. Case Presentation: An academic health sciences library serving students and faculty in the colleges of medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and public health piloted a collection of nonfiction health sciences audiobooks through OverDrive’s Libby app. We launched an initial collection of over 500 titles using the cost per circ (CPC) pricing model, including a focus on four content areas: popular nonfiction, first person experiences, history of healthcare, and study helps. Over the first year of the project, we saw 123 total checkouts of 64 titles across 74 unique users, spending $351.84 US on CPC checkouts. Conclusions: The OverDrive title library includes sufficient offerings for academic health sciences libraries to create targeted nonfiction audiobook collections. Challenges of which other libraries should be aware include planning budgets around adding funds each year and determining local workflows to keep the collection updated. Though usage was low in the first year, it was consistent and varied, making the project beneficial and sustainable.
Background: Chiropractors must find, appraise, and apply high quality, peer-reviewed information sources to make evidence-based clinical practice decisions. This case report describes perceptions of scholarly publishing practices, with a focus on predatory and deceptive publishing, among chiropractic educational partners at one chiropractic college. Case Presentation: An anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey was administered to a convenience sample of 2,476 faculty, staff, and students. The 35-item questionnaire elicited publishing experience, critical appraisal skills, knowledge of scholarly and predatory publishing, and perceptions of chiropractic journals and information resources. Respondents (n=204, 111 students, 36 faculty, 16 administrators, and 41 staff) provided usable survey responses, though skipped items were common. Twenty-six percent had published one or more peer-reviewed publications. Most self-rated themselves as novice or intermediate in their ability to perform literature searches (87%) or critically appraise research articles (82%). Forty-six percent to 69% had not read or were unsure of the quality of scientific evidence for 11 chiropractic-related journals. Fifty-seven percent were unsure or unfamiliar with predatory journals and 51% lacked confidence in recognizing these journals. Predatory practices identified included insufficient or fast peer review, editorial board and impact factor issues, publication fees, plagiarized articles, and unsolicited request for paper submissions. Sixty-one percent requested training or resources on identifying quality academic journals for publication or research. Conclusion: Chiropractic educational partners were unfamiliar with most chiropractic journals and had little familiarity with predatory publishing. Targeted training on identifying quality academic publications, conducting literature reviews and critically appraising research articles is recommended.
