Describes the process and benefits of undertaking a systematic review in LIS. Uses the example of a review undertaken by a group of UK Clinical Librarians

1. Evaluating clinical librarian services: the process of conducting a systematic review
Brettle, A1. Maden-Jenkins, M2. Anderson, L.3 McNally, R4 Pratchett, T5. Tancock, J5. Thornton, D6. Webb, A7. (2010)
Introduction
This project aimed to undertake a systematic review of clinical librarianship whilst providing a group of healthcare librarians with varied experience the opportunity to
develop their skills in research and systematic reviews. This poster outlines the process, benefits and barriers of being involved in a systematic review of library practice.
Ways of working
•8 librarians from different health and academic organisations in the NorthWest
•Shared group responsibility for project led by a facilitator/ mentor
•Partly funded by the Health Care Libraries Unit (NW)
•Regular face to face meetings
•Planning, discussion, task setting, task completion
•Public deadlines
•Conference presentations (ICML, EBLIP); HILJ Paper
•Working in pairs:
•Quality control, confidence building, sharing knowledge
•Web based group communication tools – Grouploop & PBWorks
•Used for communication purposes and to store/share documents
•Individual responsibility for maintaining a reflective diary & time log
•Thematic analysis of regular group discussion to assess motivators and barriers experienced
by the group
•Post-it exercises, discussions recorded and transcribed, diaries themed
Total Hours Spent
The breakdown of hours spent on the project works out as
follows:
Total hours = 1336.5
Approx imately 178 days in total were spent on the project,
(based on a 7.5 hour day)
An average of 22.25 days per person
Motivators – The Good
The reflective work identified the following 3 themes:
•Support and teamwork:
Barriers – The Bad
•Shared workload, learning from each other, concern for other group members, shared
Two clear themes emerged from the reflections:
responsibility, sharing ideas, concerns, enthusiasm, debate, enjoyment, commitment, different
•Pressure views enriches analysis
•Guilt about level of input/chasing •The learning:
people for work, being a burden, •Software (RefWorks), techniques, reading the literature, research experience, Chartership, getting
playing catch-up, responsibility to published, experience the SR Process, creating new knowledge, doing and understanding,
line managers, Grouploop. presenting data in different formats, academic writing, understanding end-users SR experiences,
•Time record keeping, managing the process, need for consistency and accuracy in data extraction
•Never enough time, justifying
•Achievements:
time away from “real job” taking
longer than expected, working •Satisfaction with task completion, pride about writing something up, unexpected contributions
outside hours which boost confidence, confidence & knowledge to teach MA modules, supporting/teaching other
healthcare librarians, realisation that librarians can support end-users undertaking systematic
reviews beyond conducting the literature search, practical application of the results to enhance our
own service evaluations
Would you do it again ….. Definitely – but would think hard re maximising the time; yes ,I'd be more comfortable with the idea of giving support to someone;
Yes, I would do a systematic review again but build in time to devote full attention to it!; Absolutely! Great opportunity to learn from experience, but would be more
realistic about the time involved; Yes but would make more realistic deadlines and set time aside to complete tasks during group meetings.
Implications for practitioners Implications for future researchers
The time involved in undertaking systematic reviews should not be
Undertaking a systematic review provides evidence relating to practice. underestimated and should be fully costed into the research proposal. Accuracy
increases confidence in personal research skills and highlights aspects beyond and consistency is required during data extraction stage. Wikis are a useful tool
the literature search where librarians can support health professionals for archiving/sharing documentation and collaboration. A group approach is
undertaking systematic reviews. It is also a time consuming process. useful for pooling skills, building networks and shared learning.
Acknowledgements: North West Health Care Libraries Unit contributed funding for this study. Organisations involved: 1University of Salford, 2Edge Hill University, 3NHS
Bury, 4University of Manchester, 5 University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, 6 Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre NHS Foundation Trust, 7 The Christie NHS Foundation
Trust