BACKGROUND: In response to several of Texas' largest medical libraries being forced to discard all serial print holdings, the Texas A&M University System and University of Texas System's Joint Library Facility (JLF) staff worked to help provide a solution to save and store these resources. This process fire-started a comprehensive effort by JLF staff to contact the National Library of Medicine (NLM) and devise a blueprint that would be used to help save and preserve all serial medical resources listed in NLM's medical retention program. CASE PRESENTATION: In an unprecedented approach, the Texas A&M JLF staff launched efforts to collect and preserve the complete holdings range of all NLM MedPrint periodical runs. This case report details the planning and steps JLF staff took to accomplish this feat; highlights important matters of consideration for the medical community which heavily relies upon continuous access to MedPrint materials; and provides insight on the apparent preservation vulnerabilities these materials increasingly face in an environment where digitization may create a false sense of security. DISCUSSION: By May 2021, JLF had collected complete title runs up to year 2000 for 202 of the 254 MedPrint titles, which consists of more than twelve thousand volumes. These efforts proved particularly beneficial in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced NLM to halt ILL processing from their print collection. During this time, JLF was uniquely positioned to meet and respond to the historic high number of medical literature ILL requests it received during this time.

BACKGROUND: The Weill Cornell Medicine, Samuel J. Wood Library's Systematic Review (SR) service began in 2011, with 2021 marking a decade of service. This paper will describe how the service policies have grown and will break down our service quantitatively over the past 11 years to examine SR timelines and trends. CASE PRESENTATION: We evaluated 11 years (2011-2021) of SR request data from our in-house documentation. In the years assessed, there have been 319 SR requests from 20 clinical departments, leading to 101 publications with at least one librarian collaborator listed as co-author. The average review took 642 days to publication, with the longest at 1408 days, and the shortest at 94 days. On average, librarians spent 14.7 hours in total on each review. SR projects were most likely to be abandoned at the title/abstract screening phase. Several policies have been put into place over the years in order to accommodate workflows and demand for our service. DISCUSSION: The SR service has seen several changes since its inception in 2011. Based on the findings and emerging trends discussed here, our service will inevitably evolve further to adapt to these changes, such as machine learning-assisted technology.

OBJECTIVE: The Core Clinical Journals (CCJ) list, produced by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), has been used by clinicians and librarians for half a century for two main purposes: narrowing a literature search to clinically useful journals and identifying high priority titles for library collections. After documentation of low usage of the existing CCJ, a review was undertaken to assess current validity, followed by an update to current clinical needs. METHODS: As the subject coverage of the 50-year-old list had never been evaluated, the CCJ committee began its innovative step-wise approach by analyzing the existing subject scope. To determine whether clinical subjects had changed over the last half-century, the committee collected data on journal usage in hospitals and medical facilities, adding journal usage from Morning Report blogs recording the journal article citations used by physicians and residents in response to clinical questions. Patient-driven high-frequency diagnoses and subjects added contextual data by depicting the clinical environment. RESULTS: The analysis identified a total of 80 subjects and selected 241 journals for the updated Clinical Journals filter, based on actual clinical utility of each journal. DISCUSSION: These data-driven methods created a different framework for evaluating the structure and content of this filter. It is the real-world evidence needed to highlight CCJ clinical impact and push clinically useful journals to first page results. Since the new process resulted in a new product, the name warrants a change from Core Clinical Journals (CCJ) to Clinically Useful Journals (CUJ). Therefore, the redesigned NLM Core Clinical Journals/AIM set from this point forward will be referred to as Clinically Useful Journals (CUJ). The evidence-based process used to reframe evaluation of the clinical impact and utility of biomedical journals is documented in this article.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted academic health sciences library workshops. We hypothesized that health sciences libraries moved workshops online during the height of the pandemic and that they continued to offer workshops virtually after restrictions were eased. Additionally, we believed that attendance increased. METHODS: In March 2022, we invited 161 Association of American Health Sciences Libraries members in the US and Canada to participate in a Qualtrics survey about live workshops. Live workshops were defined as synchronous; voluntary; offered to anyone regardless of school affiliation; and not credit-bearing. Three time periods were compared, and a chi square test of association was conducted to evaluate the relationship between time period and workshop format. RESULTS: Seventy-two of 81 respondents offered live workshops. A chi square test of association indicated a significant association between time period and primary delivery method, chi-square (4, N=206) = 136.55, p< .005. Before March 2020, 77% of respondents taught in person. During the height of the pandemic, 91% taught online and 60% noted higher attendance compared to pre-pandemic numbers. During the second half of 2021, 65% of workshops were taught online and 43% of respondents felt that attendance was higher than it was pre-pandemic. Overall workshop satisfaction was unchanged (54%) or improved (44%). CONCLUSION: Most health sciences librarians began offering online workshops following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than half of respondents were still teaching online in the second half of 2021. Some respondents reported increased attendance with similar levels of satisfaction.

For over a millennium, libraries and library workers have advanced the knowledge of human science by building, preserving, and sharing collections and research. Historically, libraries have also aligned their institutional responsibilities to adhere to and support the values and virtues of oppressive and colonial practices. Library history has shown the mistreatments and denials of information access of marginalized groups. The history of libraries in the health and medical sciences reveals how these institutions and their workers have preserved and circulated research studies perpetuating racial science. This commentary highlights how such institutions shape and contribute to racial science in the field of medicine. By exploring the history of medicine through this lens, we examine how such institutions have been complicit in upholding racial science. We explore historical documents and archival collections that have been collected and preserved, particularly records and data of vulnerable groups, to advance the knowledge and understanding of the human body through the ideology of racial science. We argue that health and medical sciences librarians need to critically interrogate the racism in medical libraries and its history and address how health misinformation is common even in scholarly publications.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify trends and themes in how academic health sciences libraries in the United States, Canada, and Mexico have supported engagement and outreach with Native Americans, Alaska Natives, First Nations, and Indigenous peoples, in or from those same countries. We also sought to learn and share effective practices for libraries engaging with these communities. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review utilizing Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews and followed principles from JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. We searched seven bibliographic databases, E-LIS (Eprints in Library and Information Science repository), and multiple sources of grey literature. Results were screened using Covidence and Google Sheets. We reported our review according to the PRISMA and PRISMA-S guidelines. We determined types of interventions used by academic health sciences libraries in engagement with our included populations, the level of public participation reached by these interventions, what partnerships were established, and what practices emerged. RESULTS: Database searching returned 2,020 unique results. Additional searching resulted in 211 further unique results. Full text screening of relevant articles found 65 reports meeting criteria for inclusion. Data extraction was conducted on these programs to identify partners, intervention type, and evaluation method. The programs were categorized using the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. CONCLUSION: Our scoping review found that many programs were health information trainings and did not move beyond informing the public with little further involvement. The need for sustained funding, greater community participation and more publishing on engagement and outreach are discussed.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to find out the coverage of biomedical journals published in Sub-Saharan Africa in four authoritative international databases-Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE and EMBASE and two Africa-focused scholarly databases-Africa Journals Online (AJOL) and African Index Medicus (AIM). METHODS: Lists of active journals that are published in the 46 Sub-Saharan African countries were retrieved from the Ulrich periodical directory to create master journal lists. Unique journals from other databases that were not found in Ulrich were added to the master journal list. The six databases included in this study were searched for journals on the master lists. RESULTS: Only 23 of the 46 Sub-Saharan African countries had at least one biomedical journal. Only about one-quarter (152) of the 560 biomedical journals from Sub-Saharan Africa were found in at least one of the biomedical databases. South African journals accounted for more than 50% of all the Sub-Saharan journals in the international scholarly databases. AJOL contains the highest number of biomedical journals from Sub-Saharan Africa, followed by Scopus and EMBASE. AJOL asserts its importance by covering the highest number of unique journals and having a representative number of journals in all biomedical sub-disciplines. CONCLUSION: The majority of studies from Sub-Saharan Africa are left out when biomedical evidence-based researchers only retrieve studies from authoritative international databases. Searching Google Scholar and the African research databases of AJOL and AIM would increase the number of studies from the region.

OBJECTIVE: This follow-up study aims to determine if and how the coverage of funding information in Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) and Scopus changed from 2015 to 2021. METHODS: The number of all funded articles published in 2021 was identified in WoS and Scopus bibliographic databases using bibliometric analysis on a sample of 52 prestigious medical journals. RESULTS: The analysis of the number of funded articles with funding information showed statistically significant differences between Scopus and WoS due to substantial differences in the number of funded articles between some single journals. CONCLUSION: Due to significant differences in the number of funded articles indexed in WoS and Scopus, which might be attributed to the different protocols for handling funding data in WoS and Scopus, we would still advise using both databases to obtain and analyze funding information.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the association between the efficacy/efficiency of digital information retrieval among community family physicians at the point of care and information and computer literacy. METHODS: This study is a part of a cross-sectional anonymous online survey-based study among community family physicians who reported no affiliation with an academic institution in eight Arab countries. RESULTS: A total of 72 physicians were included. The mean total score for the information literacy scale was 59.8 out of 91 (SD = 11.4). The mean score was 29.3 (SD = 5.6) out of 55 on the computer literacy scale. A one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant association between information literacy and information retrieval efficacy (F (2,69) = 4.466, p = 0.015) and efficiency of information retrieval (F (2.69) = 4.563, p = 0.014). Computer literacy was not associated with information retrieval efficacy or efficiency. CONCLUSION: The information and computer literacy scores of community family physicians in eight Arab countries are average. Information literacy, rather than computer literacy, is positively associated with the efficacy and efficiency of information retrieval at the point of care. There is room for improvement in evidence-based medicine curricula and continuous professional development to improve information literacy for better information retrieval and patient care.

OBJECTIVE: In 2002, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) introduced semi-automated indexing of Medline using the Medical Text Indexer (MTI). In 2021, NLM announced that it would fully automate its indexing in Medline with an improved MTI by mid-2022. This pilot study examines indexing using a sample of records in Medline from 2000, and how an early, public version of MTI's outputs compares to records created by human indexers. METHODS: This pilot study examines twenty Medline records from 2000, a year before the MTI was introduced as a MeSH term recommender. We identified twenty higher- and lower-impact biomedical journals based on Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and examined the indexing of papers by feeding their PubMed records into the Interactive MTI tool. RESULTS: In the sample, we found key differences between automated and human-indexed Medline records: MTI assigned more terms and used them more accurately for citations in the higher JIF group, and MTI tended to rank the Male check tag more highly than the Female check tag and to omit Aged check tags. Sometimes MTI chose more specific terms than human indexers but was inconsistent in applying specificity principles. CONCLUSION: NLM's transition to fully automated indexing of the biomedical literature could introduce or perpetuate inconsistencies and biases in Medline. Librarians and searchers should assess changes to index terms, and their impact on PubMed's mapping features for a range of topics. Future research should evaluate automated indexing as it pertains to finding clinical information effectively, and in performing systematic searches.

BACKGROUND: Having diverse representation in clinical trial participation is important. Historically, rural residents have been underrepresented in clinical trial research. Public librarians have an opportunity to promote clinical trial participation among rural residents by offering consumer health information services that help patrons to understand what clinical trials are and how they can find relevant clinical trials. CASE PRESENTATION: A consumer health library and a clinical trial center located at a large academic medical center collaborated to provide clinical trial information programming to rural public libraries. The group was awarded a Network of the National Library of Medicine (NNLM) Community Outreach Grant and was able to plan, develop, promote, and implement programs including training workshops, a speaker event, and a book discussion to rural public librarians. DISCUSSION: Marketing the programs to rural public libraries was difficult and many barriers were encountered. Though registration and subsequent participation were low, participants expressed interest and gratitude for the programs. For any future programs targeting this population, further strategies will need to be implemented to ensure increased registrations and attendees.

Trusted patient education materials are the backbone of an effective consumer health library. However, members of the LGBTQ+ community may not see themselves or their families reflected in many resources due to the gendered and non-inclusive language they are written in. This article outlines some suggestions for concrete actions that patient librarians can take to ensure that their materials are not excluding LGBTQ+ patients.

BACKGROUND: Health sciences libraries in medical schools, academic health centers, health care networks, and hospitals have established institutional repositories (IRs) to showcase their research achievements, increase visibility, expand the reach of institutional scholarship, and disseminate unique content. Newer roles for IRs include publishing open access journals, tracking researcher productivity, and serving as repositories for data sharing. Many repository managers oversee their IR with limited assistance from others at their institution. Therefore, IR practitioners find it valuable to network and learn from colleagues at other institutions. CASE PRESENTATION: This case report describes the genesis and implementation of a new initiative specifically designed for a health sciences audience: the Medical Institutional Repositories in Libraries (MIRL) Symposium. Six medical librarians from hospitals and academic institutions in the U.S. organized the inaugural symposium held virtually in November 2021. The goal was to fill a perceived gap in conference programming for IR practitioners in health settings. Themes of the 2021 and subsequent 2022 symposium included IR management, increasing readership and engagement, and platform migration. Post-symposium surveys were completed by 73/238 attendees (31%) in 2021 and by 62/180 (34%) in 2022. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive. DISCUSSION: Participant responses in post-symposium surveys rated MIRL highly. The MIRL planning group intends to continue the symposium and hopes MIRL will steadily evolve, build community among IR practitioners in the health sciences, and expand the conversation around best practices for digital archiving of institutional content. The implementation design of MIRL serves as a blueprint for collaboratively bringing together a professional community of practice.

The second half of 2022 was a time of much change at the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA). We hope to lead this journal with transparency, and in this spirit, we wanted to give you an overview of what we have done since we were appointed as co-editors in chief (co-EICs) in June 2022.

The Medical Library Association (MLA) has defined 7 domain hubs aligning to different areas of information professional practice. To assess the extent to which content in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is reflective of these domains, we analyzed the magnitude of JMLA articles aligning to each domain hub over the last 10 years. Bibliographic records for 453 articles published in JMLA from 2010 to 2019 were downloaded from Web of Science and screened using Covidence software. Thirteen articles were excluded during the title and abstract review because they failed to meet the inclusion criteria, resulting in 440 articles included in this review. The title and abstract of each article were screened by two reviewers, each of whom assigned the article up to two tags corresponding to MLA domain hubs (i.e., information services, information management, education, professionalism and leadership, innovation and research practice, clinical support, and health equity & global health). These results inform the MLA community about our strengths in health information professional practice as reflected by articles published in JMLA.

The great challenge medical library professionals are facing is how we evolve and respond to the emerging digital era. If we successfully understand and adapt to the emerging digital information environment, medical librarians/Health Information Professionals (HIPs) can play an even greater role in the advance in the health care of our nation and its residents. The opportunities and challenges are at the level we successfully responded to in the late 1960's and the 1970's under the leadership of the National Library of Medicine with its MEDLARS/Medline programs and Medical Library Assistance Act which enabled medical libraries to enter what I have referred to as The Golden Age of Medical Libraries. In this presentation, I focused on the transition of the health-related print Knowledge-Based Information base to the emerging digital health-related ecosystem. I review how this transition is being driven by evolving information technology. The development of "data driven health care" built on this emerging information ecosystem is being led by the National Library of Medicine's 2017-2027 Strategic plan and the Medical Library Association's programs in support of developing medical librarian/HIP's training, skills, and services to support their users access and use of this rapidly expanding health information ecosystem. I then present a brief description of the digital health information ecosystem that is just starting to emerge and the emerging new roles and services HIPs and their libraries are developing to support effective institutional access and use.

OBJECTIVE: There is little doubt that there are currently obstacles in measuring the impact of the history of medicine within medical training. Consequently, there is a clear need to support a vision that can historicize Euro-Western medicine, leading to a greater understanding of how the medical world is a distinct form of reality for those who are about to immerse themselves in the study of medicine. METHODS: History teaches that changes in medicine are due to the processes inherent to the interaction among individuals, institutions, and society rather than individual facts or individual authors. RESULTS: Therefore, we cannot ignore the fact that the expertise and know-how developed during medical training are the final product of relationships and memories that have a historical life that is based social, economic, and political aspects. CONCLUSION: Moreover, these relationships and memories have undergone dynamic processes of selection and attribution of meaning, as well as individual and collective sharing, which have also been confronted with archetypes that are still able to influence clinical approaches and medical therapy today.

OBJECTIVE: Medical care for cancer is increasingly directed by genomic laboratory testing for alterations in the tumor genome that are significant for diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. Uniquely in medicine, providers must search the biomedical literature for each patient to determine the clinical significance of these alterations. Access to published scientific literature is frequently subject to high fees, with access limited to institutional subscriptions. We sought to investigate the degree to which the scientific literature is accessible to clinical cancer genomics providers, and the potential role of university and hospital system libraries in information access for cancer care. METHODS: We identified 265 journals that were accessed during the interpretation and reporting of clinical test results from 1,842 cancer patients at the University Health Network (Toronto, Canada). We determined the degree of open access for this set of clinically important literature, and for any journals not available through open access we surveyed subscription access at seven academic hospital systems and at their affiliated universities. RESULTS: This study found that nearly half (116/265) of journals have open access mandates that make articles freely available within one year of release. For the remaining subscription access journals, universities provided a uniformly high level of access, but access available through hospital system collections varied widely. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of different modes of access to the use of the scientific literature in clinical practice and points to challenges that must be overcome as genomic medicine grows in scale and complexity.

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.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate if the included references in a set of completed systematic reviews are indexed in Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase, and how many references would be missed if we were to constrict our literature searches to one of these sources, or the two databases in combination. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study where we searched for each included reference (n = 4,709) in 274 reviews produced by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health to find out if the references were indexed in the respective databases. The data was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet where we calculated the indexing rate. The reviews were sorted into eight categories to see if the indexing rate differs from subject to subject. RESULTS: The indexing rate in MEDLINE (86.6%) was slightly lower than in Embase (88.2%). Without the MEDLINE records in Embase, the indexing rate in Embase was 71.8%. The highest indexing rate was achieved by combining both databases (90.2%). The indexing rate was highest in the category "Physical health - treatment" (97.4%). The category "Welfare" had the lowest indexing rate (58.9%). CONCLUSION: Our data reveals that 9.8% of the references are not indexed in either database. Furthermore, in 5% of the reviews, the indexing rate was 50% or lower.