↓ Skip to main content

Instructional methods used by health sciences librarians to teach evidence-based practice (EBP): a systematic review.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Medical Library Association, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Instructional methods used by health sciences librarians to teach evidence-based practice (EBP): a systematic review.
Published in
Journal of the Medical Library Association, July 2016
DOI 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie M Swanberg, Carolyn Ching Dennison, Alison Farrell, Viola Machel, Christine Marton, Kelly K O'Brien, Virginia Pannabecker, Mindy Thuna, Assako Nitta Holyoke

Abstract

Librarians often teach evidence-based practice (EBP) within health sciences curricula. It is not known what teaching methods are most effective. A systematic review of the literature was conducted searching CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, LISTA, PubMed, Scopus, and others. Searches were completed through December 2014. No limits were applied. Hand searching of Medical Library Association annual meeting abstracts from 2009-2014 was also completed. Studies must be about EBP instruction by a librarian within undergraduate or graduate health sciences curricula and include skills assessment. Studies with no assessment, letters and comments, and veterinary education studies were excluded. Data extraction and critical appraisal were performed to determine the risk of bias of each study. Twenty-seven studies were included for analysis. Studies occurred in the United States (20), Canada (3), the United Kingdom (1), and Italy (1), with 22 in medicine and 5 in allied health. Teaching methods included lecture (20), small group or one-on-one instruction (16), computer lab practice (15), and online learning (6). Assessments were quizzes or tests, pretests and posttests, peer-review, search strategy evaluations, clinical scenario assignments, or a hybrid. Due to large variability across studies, meta-analysis was not conducted. Findings were weakly significant for positive change in search performance for most studies. Only one study compared teaching methods, and no one teaching method proved more effective. Future studies could conduct multisite interventions using randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trial study design and standardized assessment tools to measure outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 207 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 76 36%
Student > Master 18 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 5%
Unspecified 9 4%
Other 46 22%
Unknown 40 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 25%
Social Sciences 26 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Arts and Humanities 11 5%
Psychology 10 5%
Other 43 20%
Unknown 46 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,557,836
of 25,074,338 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Medical Library Association
#99
of 928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,568
of 360,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Medical Library Association
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,074,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 928 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,422 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.