Journal of the Medical Library Association最新文献

{"title":"Evidence-based design of vaccine hesitancy information resources for health care providers.","authors":"Margaret Ansell, Hannah F Norton, Nina C Stoyan-Rosenzweig, Jane Morgan-Daniel, Mary E Edwards, Lauren Adkins","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2135","DOIUrl":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2135","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The University of Florida Health Science Center Libraries (HSCL) sought to address the increasing challenge of vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic by developing evidence-based information resources for health care providers. To do this, HSCL librarians assessed the vaccine hesitancy information needs of local health care providers to design a resource that could be used to support conversations with vaccine hesitant patients at the point of care.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>A team of six librarians, supported by student research assistants, conducted interviews with 20 health care providers in north central Florida. The interviews, conducted via Zoom, focused on providers' experiences with vaccine-hesitant patients. Content analysis of the transcribed interviews identified key themes, including trust, individualized conversations, and the impact of misinformation. The team developed a resource guide based on these findings, featuring curated information to support providers in vaccine discussions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results highlighted the importance of trust in patient-provider relationships and the challenges posed by misinformation. Providers expressed a need for diverse, accessible resources to aid in conversations about vaccines. The resulting resource guide, disseminated through local health networks, aims to enhance providers' ability to address vaccine hesitancy effectively. This project underscores the critical role of librarians in public health initiatives and the value of collaborative efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 4","pages":"452-461"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670223/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149217045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development and validation of a geographic search filter for PubMed for retrieving studies about Nordic countries.","authors":"Malin Barkelind","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2311","DOIUrl":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2311","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study describes the development and validation of a geographic search filter. The filter is intended to find references on the Nordic countries in PubMed. This type of filter enables efficient systematic literature searches for evidence that is relevant for the region, and no validated filter for these countries is publicly available at the time of this publication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Nordic countries are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. References on one or more of these countries were identified by relative recall, using systematic and scoping reviews that did not limit searches to any geographic region but presented the countries of included studies. The references (n = 288) were equally split into a development set and a validation set. A combination of objective and subjective methods was used to identify relevant terms from the development set. The filter was then tested, first on the development set, then on the validation set. A sample of the reviews that were used to identify references for recall testing was also used to test precision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final filter surpassed the threshold recall of 90%. Recall was 94.4% for the development set, capturing 136 of 144 references, and 96.5% for the validation set, or 139 of 144. Precision was 95.8% with one false positive of 24 retrieved references.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A validated filter has been developed that can be used to find studies on the Nordic countries when searching PubMed on topics related to human health.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 4","pages":"419-427"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670220/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149216899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Head to head searching: the Search&Destroy card game in the health sciences classroom.","authors":"Lena Bohman, Regina Vitiello, Christiana M Keinath, Gary R Maixner, Mari Kermit-Canfield","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2299","DOIUrl":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2299","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 4","pages":"462-470"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670224/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149217016","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Health sciences librarians' awareness and incorporation of informed consent standards for medical image publication: a preliminary study.","authors":"Sarah McClung, Rachel Keiko Stark, Megan DeArmond, Sherli Koshy-Chenthittayil","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.1949","DOIUrl":"10.5195/jmla.2026.1949","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 4","pages":"401-409"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670234/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149216990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Still a filtering failure? A follow-up commentary on automated MeSH indexing.","authors":"Nicole Askin, Tyler Ostapyk, Carla Epp","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2377","DOIUrl":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2377","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We previously found that automated indexing in PubMed and Medline increased the risk of inappropriately excluding human studies when using the human studies filter from the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS). Following the National Library of Medicine's transition from the Medical Text Indexer-Auto (MTIA) to the Medical Text Indexer-Next Generation (MTIX) in 2024, we wanted to assess whether that was still the case. Using the same approach as our previous study, we reviewed a set of MTIX-indexed records that were excluded by the HSSS. Only 1.1% turned out to be human studies that were inappropriately excluded - a major improvement over not only MTIA but also human indexers in our previous comparison. However, problems remain with automated indexing and search filters. This commentary outlines our findings and our ongoing concerns.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 4","pages":"508-511"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670233/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149217079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sound solutions: expanding access through digital audiobooks in an academic health sciences library.","authors":"Julie Evener, Melinda H Berg","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2425","DOIUrl":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2425","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 4","pages":"439-444"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670221/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149217133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"AI, libraries, and literacy: revisiting the <i>Journal of the Medical Library Association</i>'s policy on the use of generative artificial intelligence in submissions.","authors":"Alexander J Carroll, Jill T Boruff, Michelle Kraft","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2516","DOIUrl":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2516","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the fall of 2023, the <i>Journal of the Medical Library Association</i> (<i>JMLA</i>) introduced its policy on generative artificial intelligence (AI) submissions, predicting that these tools would become embedded within the workflows of clinicians, educators, researchers, and students. Those predictions dramatically underestimated AI's impact. On the three-year anniversary of that editorial, we revisit the issue in light of AI's unprecedentedly rapid adoption across knowledge work. We examine the educational challenges AI poses, arguing that excessive cognitive offloading threatens the deep thinking on which learning depends. We then consider the challenges AI creates for researchers, from hallucinated citations to fabricated diseases. We suggest that health sciences librarians, who offer expertise in approaching information systems with discernment, are well suited to be leaders in this space. To help prospective <i>JMLA</i> authors weigh whether and when to use AI, we propose the Compliance, Verifiability, and Disclosure (CVD) Framework. Throughout, we reaffirm our conviction that education and research must remain human-centered endeavors.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 4","pages":"330-335"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670236/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149216664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Supporting researcher compliance: assessing institutional readiness for the 2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy.","authors":"Sergio Corrales-Guerrero, Xu Zhang, Thipkanok Wongphothiphan, Jenny Xu, Yungui Huang","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2361","DOIUrl":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2361","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess researchers' understanding, readiness, and perceived challenges related to the 2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy and identify institutional support needs to facilitate compliance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-method study was conducted using a 15-item survey distributed to 155 researchers at an academic medical center, with 55 responses (35% response rate). The survey evaluated familiarity with the DMS policy, confidence in performing data management and sharing tasks, perceived burden, and desired institutional support. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and open-ended responses underwent inductive thematic analysis to identify key themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most respondents (67%) understood the DMS policy, yet fewer (47%) felt comfortable developing a DMS Plan. Only 29% had used DMPTool.org, while 87% requested tailored templates. Confidence in identifying appropriate repositories (40%) and budgeting for DMS activities (38%) was limited, with 68% perceiving plan execution as burdensome. Qualitative findings revealed two major themes: (1) Operational and Infrastructure Needs; emphasizing the need for centralized consultation, discipline-specific templates, equitable access to expertise, and budget guidance; and (2) Implementation Challenges and Perceived Burden; including perceptions of administrative overload, uncertainty in managing sensitive data, and calls for clearer institutional communication and cultural reframing of data sharing as a value-added activity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While researchers endorse the principles of the NIH DMS policy, many lack the practical resources and institutional support necessary for effective compliance. Developing centralized infrastructure, standardized guidance, and targeted training may reduce burdens, promote equity, and strengthen a culture of responsible data stewardship. While researchers endorse the principles of the NIH DMS policy, many lack the practical resources and institutional support necessary for effective compliance. Developing centralized infrastructure, standardized guidance, and targeted training may reduce burdens, promote equity, and strengthen a culture of responsible data stewardship.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 4","pages":"371-379"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670228/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149217111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scholarly publishing literacy and perceptions of predatory publishing among educational partners at a chiropractic college: a case report.","authors":"Jennifer Smith, Edward W Murphy, Stacie A Salsbury","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2226","DOIUrl":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2226","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 4","pages":"393-400"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670217/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149217150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Author profiles in Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, ORCID, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar: a case report.","authors":"Kimberly R Powell","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2304","DOIUrl":"10.5195/jmla.2026.2304","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to benchmark the availability and accuracy of author profiles for 45 faculty members within the Auburn University College of Nursing. Profile availability in the database platforms Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions were analyzed alongside the author-driven platforms ORCID, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar to set an understanding for the potential efforts needed for profile curation, publication tracking, and research impact assessments moving forward.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>Each of the six platforms were manually searched for faculty and name variations alongside both current and past institutional affiliations. All identified profiles were collected. Associated publication counts were recorded and database results were screened for accurate author identification. Among the author-driven platforms, ORCID had the highest adoption rate, with 64% of faculty, while ResearchGate and Google Scholar trailed with 38% and 16% faculty adoption, respectively. Web of Science offered profiles for 82% of faculty; Scopus offered profiles for 80% of faculty, and Dimensions only 53%. However, 53% of the associated publications were misattributed in Web of Science profiles compared to just 1% misattribution in Scopus and none in Dimensions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among our faculty, Scopus offered the most efficient author profile platform, balancing profile availability, minimizing misattribution, and including avenues for early identification of new authors. While largely in line with previous study findings, this effort provided important contextual understandings of profile data availability which can be used to inform research impact assessments and library services supporting author profiles for highlighting scholarly influence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"114 4","pages":"491-498"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670225/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149216754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}