dc.contributor.author	Swanberg, Stephanie M.	en
dc.contributor.author	Dennison, Carolyn Ching	en
dc.contributor.author	Farrell, Alison	en
dc.contributor.author	Machel, Viola	en
dc.contributor.author	Marton, Christine	en
dc.contributor.author	O'Brien, Kelly K.	en
dc.contributor.author	Pannabecker, Virginia	en
dc.contributor.author	Thuna, Mindy	en
dc.contributor.author	Holyoke, Assako Nitta	en
dc.date.accessioned	2016-07-28T20:30:41Z	en
dc.date.available	2016-07-28T20:30:41Z	en
dc.date.issued	2016-07	en
dc.description.abstract	BACKGROUND: Librarians often teach evidence-based practice (EBP) within health sciences curricula. It is not known what teaching methods are most effective. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. DISCUSSION: 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. DATA FILES: In September 2017, the team was asked by the Journal of the Medical Library Association Editorial Board "if they would send [the JMLA Editorial Board] working group the data that would be needed to reproduce the results described in their articles" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5886497/). The team identified the study data files, cleaned them, and sent them to JMLA. However, as this was simply a query and experiment by the Editorial Board, the files were not added to the published article. As these files are now prepared for sharing, they have been added to this study's VTechWorks institutional repository record in August, 2018.	en
dc.identifier.doi	https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.004	en
dc.identifier.issue	3	en
dc.identifier.other	PMC4915637	en
dc.identifier.other	27366120	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10919/71876	en
dc.identifier.volume	104	en
dc.language.iso	en	en
dc.publisher	Medical Library Association	en
dc.rights	Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States	en
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/	en
dc.subject	Evidence-Based Practice	en
dc.subject	EBP	en
dc.subject	Students, Health Occupations	en
dc.subject	Health Sciences	en
dc.subject	Librarians	en
dc.subject	Teaching	en
dc.subject	Assessment	en
dc.subject	Educational Measurement	en
dc.title	Instructional methods used by health sciences librarians to teach evidence-based practice (EBP): a systematic review	en
dc.title.serial	Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA	en
dc.type	Article	en
dc.type.dcmitype	Text	en

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

Files

Original bundle

License bundle

Collections