Defining the Medical Library Association research agenda: methodology and final results from a consensus process

Eldredge, Jonathan D.; Harris, Martha R.; Ascher, Marie

doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.006

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They identified a gap between those questions being asked by library and information practitioners and those being addressed by researchers. A 2011 study (Eldredge, Ascher, Holmes, & Harris, 2012) identified the top-ranked research questions specifically for the medical library profession building on a previous study (Eldredge, Harris, & Ascher, 2009) but upgrading the methodology to improve answerability. A previous study has taken the "demand-supply chain" for EBLIP question-answering further by asking "what studies do practitioners actually find useful?"…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Ask, Acquire, Appraise”: A Study of LIS Practitioners Participating in an EBLIP Continuing Education Course

Sutton¹,

Evans²

2013

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective -The project sought to examine the aspects of the question answering process in an evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) context by presenting the questions asked, articles selected, and checklists used by an opportunistic sample of Australian and New Zealand library and information professionals from multiple library and information sectors participating in the "Evidence Based Library and Information Practice: Delivering Services That Shine" (EBLIP-Gloss) FOLIOz e-learning course.Methods -The researchers analyzed the "ask," "acquire," and "appraise" tasks completed by twenty-nine library and information professionals working in Australia or New Zealand. Questions were categorized by EBLIP domain, articles were examined to identify any comparisons, and checklists were collated by frequency.Results -Questions fell within each of the six EBLIP domains, with management being the most common. Timeliness, relevance, and accessibility were stronger determinants of article selection than rigour or study design. Relevance, domain, and applicability were the key determinants in selecting a checklist.Conclusion -This small-scale study exemplifies the EBLIP process for a self-selecting group of library and information professionals working in Australia and New Zealand. It provides a snapshot of the types of questions that library and information practitioners ask, and the types of articles and checklists found to be useful. Participants demonstrated a preference for literature and checklists originating from within the library and information science (LIS) field, reinforcing the imperative for LIS professionals to contribute to EBLIP research.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Ask, Acquire, Appraise”: A Study of LIS Practitioners Participating in an EBLIP Continuing Education Course

Sutton¹,

Evans²

2013

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, libraries have been slow in developing a research agenda focused on their own discipline [7].…”

Section: Brief Communication: Mcgowanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tomorrow's academic health sciences library today

McGowan

2012

J Med Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The intention was very much that "a problem shared is a problem halved" with colleagues often being able to suggest potential solutions that were not within the immediate view of the one generating the original issue. Finally Jonathan Eldredge shared with participants published examples, from the Research Section of the Medical Library Association (Eldredge et al, 2009) and the Swedish Library Association (Maceviciute & Wilson, 2009), of recent Delphi exercises on research priorities. It was suggested that similar methods might be usefully transferred and adopted, while recognising that the focus of the exercise in the Caribbean had been on impediments to evidence based library and information practice (i.e., related to implementation) and not on research priorities per se.…”

Section: In Twenty Hund-er-ed and Ten A Voyage Of Discovery Took Placmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Voyage of Discovery: Identifying Barriers to EBLIP in the Caribbean

Eldredge¹

2010

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Defining the Medical Library Association research agenda: methodology and final results from a consensus process

Abstract: The modified delphi method accomplished its desired survey and consensus goals. Future survey and consensus processes will be revised to generate more initial questions and to distill a larger number of ranked prioritized research questions.

Cited by 19 publications

References 21 publications

“Ask, Acquire, Appraise”: A Study of LIS Practitioners Participating in an EBLIP Continuing Education Course

“Ask, Acquire, Appraise”: A Study of LIS Practitioners Participating in an EBLIP Continuing Education Course

Tomorrow's academic health sciences library today

A Voyage of Discovery: Identifying Barriers to EBLIP in the Caribbean

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About