Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Stacy Brody, Sara Loree, Margaret Sampson, Shaila Mensinkai, Jennifer Coffman, Mark Heinrich Mueller, Nicole Askin, Cheryl Hamill, Emma Wilson, Mary Beth McAteer, Heather Staines
{"title":"Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices.","authors":"Stacy Brody, Sara Loree, Margaret Sampson, Shaila Mensinkai, Jennifer Coffman, Mark Heinrich Mueller, Nicole Askin, Cheryl Hamill, Emma Wilson, Mary Beth McAteer, Heather Staines","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2023.1530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Information professionals have supported medical providers, administrators and decision-makers, and guideline creators in the COVID-19 response. Searching COVID-19 literature presented new challenges, including the volume and heterogeneity of literature and the proliferation of new information sources, and exposed existing issues in metadata and publishing. An expert panel developed best practices, including recommendations, elaborations, and examples, for searching during public health emergencies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Project directors and advisors developed core elements from experience and literature. Experts, identified by affiliation with evidence synthesis groups, COVID-19 search experience, and nomination, responded to an online survey to reach consensus on core elements. Expert participants provided written responses to guiding questions. A synthesis of responses provided the foundation for focus group discussions. A writing group then drafted the best practices into a statement. Experts reviewed the statement prior to dissemination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve information professionals contributed to best practice recommendations on six elements: core resources, search strategies, publication types, transparency and reproducibility, collaboration, and conducting research. Underlying principles across recommendations include timeliness, openness, balance, preparedness, and responsiveness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The authors and experts anticipate the recommendations for searching for evidence during public health emergencies will help information specialists, librarians, evidence synthesis groups, researchers, and decision-makers respond to future public health emergencies, including but not limited to disease outbreaks. The recommendations complement existing guidance by addressing concerns specific to emergency response. The statement is intended as a living document. Future revisions should solicit input from a broader community and reflect conclusions of meta-research on COVID-19 and health emergencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"111 1-2","pages":"566-578"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10259619/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1530","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Information professionals have supported medical providers, administrators and decision-makers, and guideline creators in the COVID-19 response. Searching COVID-19 literature presented new challenges, including the volume and heterogeneity of literature and the proliferation of new information sources, and exposed existing issues in metadata and publishing. An expert panel developed best practices, including recommendations, elaborations, and examples, for searching during public health emergencies.

Methods: Project directors and advisors developed core elements from experience and literature. Experts, identified by affiliation with evidence synthesis groups, COVID-19 search experience, and nomination, responded to an online survey to reach consensus on core elements. Expert participants provided written responses to guiding questions. A synthesis of responses provided the foundation for focus group discussions. A writing group then drafted the best practices into a statement. Experts reviewed the statement prior to dissemination.

Results: Twelve information professionals contributed to best practice recommendations on six elements: core resources, search strategies, publication types, transparency and reproducibility, collaboration, and conducting research. Underlying principles across recommendations include timeliness, openness, balance, preparedness, and responsiveness.

Conclusions: The authors and experts anticipate the recommendations for searching for evidence during public health emergencies will help information specialists, librarians, evidence synthesis groups, researchers, and decision-makers respond to future public health emergencies, including but not limited to disease outbreaks. The recommendations complement existing guidance by addressing concerns specific to emergency response. The statement is intended as a living document. Future revisions should solicit input from a broader community and reflect conclusions of meta-research on COVID-19 and health emergencies.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在公共卫生突发事件中寻找证据:最佳实践白皮书。
目标:在应对 COVID-19 的过程中,信息专业人员为医疗服务提供者、管理者和决策者以及指南制定者提供了支持。搜索 COVID-19 文献带来了新的挑战,包括文献的数量和异质性以及新信息源的激增,并暴露了元数据和出版方面的现有问题。专家小组制定了在公共卫生突发事件期间进行搜索的最佳实践,包括建议、阐述和示例:方法:项目主任和顾问根据经验和文献制定了核心要素。根据与证据合成小组的关系、COVID-19 搜索经验和提名确定的专家对在线调查做出回应,以就核心要素达成共识。专家参与者对指导性问题提供了书面答复。对回复的综合为焦点小组讨论奠定了基础。随后,写作小组将最佳实践起草成一份声明。结果:12 位信息专业人士就以下六项内容提出了最佳实践建议:核心资源、搜索策略、出版物类型、透明度和可复制性、合作以及开展研究。各项建议的基本原则包括及时性、公开性、平衡性、准备性和响应性:作者和专家预计,在公共卫生突发事件中搜索证据的建议将有助于信息专家、图书馆员、证据合成小组、研究人员和决策者应对未来的公共卫生突发事件,包括但不限于疾病爆发。这些建议是对现有指南的补充,解决了应急响应中的具体问题。本声明旨在成为一份有生命力的文件。未来的修订应征求更广泛群体的意见,并反映 COVID-19 和卫生突发事件元研究的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信