Three new librarians highlight their varied pathways into health sciences librarianship and offer insight into how they are navigating the challenges and successes of being new to the profession. The authors define a new health sciences librarian as a person who has fewer than five years of experience in health sciences librarianship specifically, having either recently graduated from library school or entered the health sciences from another type of librarianship. Jamia Williams speaks about her journey from new MLS graduate to health science librarian; Kelsa Bartley details her transition from library professional to health science librarian; and Jahala Simuel shares her experiences moving from academic librarian to health science librarian. This commentary provides strategies, tips, and tricks that new health sciences librarians may use to hone their craft and explore opportunities for professional development.

The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) recently issued a call for submissions that recognize and address social injustices; speak to diversity, equity, and inclusion in our workforce and among our user populations; and share critical perspectives on health sciences librarianship as well as those on any topic within JMLA's scope written by authors who are Black, Indigenous, or People of Color. We also committed to creating more equitable opportunities for authors, reviewers, and editorial board members from marginalized groups. As part of this effort, we conducted a demographic survey of all individuals who served as a member of the JMLA editorial board or reviewer or had submitted a manuscript to JMLA between 2018 and 2020. We found that most survey respondents are white, heterosexual, women and do not identify with a disability, meaning that JMLA is missing out on a diversity of perspectives and life experiences that could improve the journal's processes and policies, enrich its content, and accelerate the research and practice of health sciences librarianship. Therefore, to avoid perpetuating or aggravating systemic biases and power structures in scholarly publishing or health sciences librarianship, we pledge to take concrete steps toward making JMLA a more diverse and inclusive journal.

OBJECTIVE: While data management (DM) is an increasing responsibility of doctorally prepared nurses, little is understood about how DM education and expectations are reflected within student handbooks. The purpose of this study was to assess the inclusion of DM content within doctoral nursing student handbooks. METHODS: A list of 346 doctoral programs was obtained from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). Program websites were searched to locate program handbooks, which were downloaded for analysis. A textual review of 261 handbooks from 215 institutions was conducted to determine whether DM was mentioned and, if so, where the DM content was located. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the presence of DM guidance by type of institution, Carnegie Classification, and the type of doctoral program handbook. RESULTS: A total of 1,382 codes were identified across data life cycle stages, most commonly in the handbooks' project requirements section. The most frequent mention of DM was in relation to collecting and analyzing data; the least frequent related to publishing and sharing data and preservation. Significant differences in the frequency and location of codes were identified by program type and Carnegie Classification. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing doctoral program handbooks primarily address collecting and analyzing data during student projects. Findings suggest limited education about, and inclusion of, DM life cycle content, especially within DNP programs. Collaboration between nursing faculty and librarians and nursing and library professional organizations is needed to advance the adoption of DM best practices for preparing students in their future roles as clinicians and scholars.

OBJECTIVE: This study was intended to (1) provide clinical trial data-sharing platform designers with insight into users' experiences when attempting to evaluate and access datasets, (2) spark conversations about improving the transparency and discoverability of clinical trial data, and (3) provide a partial view of the current information-sharing landscape for clinical trials. METHODS: We evaluated preview information provided for 10 datasets in each of 7 clinical trial data-sharing platforms between February and April 2019. Specifically, we evaluated the platforms in terms of the extent to which we found (1) preview information about the dataset, (2) trial information on ClinicalTrials.gov and other external websites, and (3) evidence of the existence of trial protocols and data dictionaries. RESULTS: All seven platforms provided data previews. Three platforms provided information on data file format (e.g., CSV, SAS file). Three allowed batch downloads of datasets (i.e., downloading multiple datasets with a single request), whereas four required separate requests for each dataset. All but one platform linked to ClinicalTrials.gov records, but only one platform had ClinicalTrails.gov records that linked back to the platform. Three platforms consistently linked to external websites and primary publications. Four platforms provided evidence of the presence of a protocol, and six platforms provided evidence of the presence of data dictionaries. CONCLUSIONS: More work is needed to improve the discoverability, transparency, and utility of information on clinical trial data-sharing platforms. Increasing the amount of dataset preview information available to users could considerably improve the discoverability and utility of clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a bibliometric analysis of Letters to the Editor published on the Zika virus from 1952-2018. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted using the terms (Zika OR ZIKV). Results were limited to 1952-2018 and Publication Type = Letter. Results were exported to EndNote, and the full text of each Letter examined. Each Letter was assigned to one of five categories: Reader Response, Author Reply, Observation, Case Report, or Research. Additional study parameters included number of authors, number of references, use of graphics, and funding. Citation reports were generated for each category and the entire dataset, producing lists sorted by Times Cited. RESULTS: Of 499 Letters, only 15 (3.0%) were published before 2016. In 2016, at the height of the Zika virus epidemic in the Americas, 244 (48.9%) Letters were published, dropping to 145 (29.1%) in 2017 and 95 (19.0%) in 2018. Letters included 149 (29.9%) Reader Responses, 56 (11.2%) Author Replies, 112 (22.4%) Observations, 70 (14.0%) Case Reports, and 112 (22.4%) Research. The Letters were written by 1-35 authors; 369 (74.0%) Letters had 1-5 authors, and 130 (26.0%) had 6 or more. The Letters cited 0-63 references, with an average of 7.0 per Letter. Graphics appeared in 192 (38.5%) Letters, and 77 (15.4%) Letters reported funding. An interesting anomaly was the 104 (20.8%) Letters authored or co-authored by 1 individual. CONCLUSION: Letters to the Editor remain an important component of scientific communication and may serve as a valuable source of clinical and research information.

BACKGROUND: One-shot library sessions have numerous drawbacks; most notably, they rarely have a long-term impact on students' research behavior or skill sets. Library literature notes that when students interact with an embedded librarian, their skills improve. While close partnerships with subject faculty are important, librarians must also assess students' skill sets to determine the impact of these teaching efforts. CASE PRESENTATION: During the course, the embedded librarian used various activities and assignments to teach information-seeking skills, with the expected outcome of increased skill sets. This IRB-approved research project focused on measuring and assessing students' information-seeking abilities before and after interacting with the embedded nursing librarian. Changes in students' information fluency skills were measured using pre- and post-tests. CONCLUSIONS: The study results provide evidence of the benefits of the embedded librarianship model. Continued measurement of students' skills acquisition is important to enable librarians and library administrators to show the positive impacts the library has on student learning and success.

BACKGROUND: Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration. METHODS: The checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process. RESULTS: The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale. CONCLUSIONS: The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.

OBJECTIVE: In regard to locating clinical trials for a systematic review, limited information is available about how librarians locate clinical trials in biomedical databases, including (1) how much information researchers provide librarians to assist with the development of a comprehensive search strategy, (2) which tools librarians turn to for information about study design methodology, and (3) librarians' confidence levels in their knowledge of study design methodology. A survey was developed to explore these aspects of how a medical librarian locates clinical trials when facilitating systematic reviews for researchers. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a 21-question survey was sent to medical librarians via several email listservs during April 2020. Respondents were limited to librarians who make the decisions on search terms for systematic reviews. RESULTS: Responses (n=120) indicated that librarians were often asked to search for various types of clinical trials. However, there was not a consistent method for creating search strategies that locate diverse types of clinical trials. Multiple methods were used for search strategy development, with hedges being the most popular method. In general, these librarians considered themselves to be confident in locating trials. Different resources were used to inform study types, including textbooks, articles, library guides and websites. DISCUSSION: Medical librarians indicated that while they felt confident in their searching skills, they did not have a definitive source of information about the various types of clinical trials, and their responses demonstrated a clear need and desire for more information on study design methodology.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, librarians at Purdue University began fielding requests from many disciplines to consult or collaborate on systematic review projects, and in 2016, health sciences librarians led the launch of a formal systematic review service. In 2019, Purdue University Libraries was reorganized as the Libraries and School of Information Studies (PULSIS) and assigned its own course designation, ILS. The increase in calls for systematic review services and the ability to teach ILS courses inspired the development of a credit-bearing ILS systematic review course. CASE PRESENTATION: We designed, taught, and assessed a one-credit systematic review course for graduate students, using a backward-design course development model and applying self-determination theoretical concepts into lessons, assignments, and assessments. Using qualitative pre- and post-assessments, we discovered a variety of themes around student motivations, expectations, and preferences for the course. In quantitative post-class assessments, students reported improved confidence in all systematic review processes, with the highest confidence in their ability to choose and use citation management managers, describe the steps in the systematic review process, and understand the importance of a reproducible and systematic search strategy. CONCLUSIONS: We considered our pilot a success. Next steps include testing 2- and 3-credit- hour models and working to formally integrate the course into departmental and certificate curriculums. This case report provides a model for course design principles, learning outcomes, and assessments that librarians and library administrators can use to adjust their systematic review services.

OBJECTIVE: The decisions and processes that may compose a systematic search strategy have not been formally identified and categorized. This study aimed to (1) identify all decisions that could be made and processes that could be used in a systematic search strategy and (2) create a hierarchical framework of those decisions and processes. METHODS: The literature was searched for documents or guides on conducting a literature search for a systematic review or other evidence synthesis. The decisions or processes for locating studies were extracted from eligible documents and categorized into a structured hierarchical framework. Feedback from experts was sought to revise the framework. The framework was revised iteratively and tested using recently published literature on systematic searching. RESULTS: Guidance documents were identified from expert organizations and a search of the literature and Internet. Data were extracted from 74 eligible documents to form the initial framework. The framework was revised based on feedback from 9 search experts and further review and testing by the authors. The hierarchical framework consists of 119 decisions or processes sorted into 17 categories and arranged under 5 topics. These topics are "Skill of the searcher," "Selecting information to identify," "Searching the literature electronically," "Other ways to identify studies," and "Updating the systematic review." CONCLUSIONS: The work identifies and classifies the decisions and processes used in systematic searching. Future work can now focus on assessing and prioritizing research on the best methods for successfully identifying all eligible studies for a systematic review.

Recent global events have underscored the need for broad access to digitized library special collections. At the same time, a burgeoning field of scientific and historical inquiry is finding a goldmine of data in the physical old books and manuscripts stored for centuries on library shelves. This article gives an overview of some of the interesting studies employing library materials in the new field of biocodicology, which expands the field of codicology (learning about book history through studying a copy's physical attributes, sometimes referred to as "archaeology of the book") to interrogate physical books with proteomic, genomic, and microbiomic tools. Historical health sciences collections provide rich, new research avenues for budding biocodicologists, and biocodicology and other interdisciplinary fields focused on material culture present an unforeseen justification for institutions' continued preservation and access to individual physical copies.

BACKGROUND: While writing a scoping review, we needed to update our search strategy. We wanted to capture articles generated by our additional search terms and articles published since our original search. Simultaneously, we strove to optimize project resources by not rescreening articles that had been captured in our original results. CASE PRESENTATION: In response, we created Open Update Re-run Deduplicate (OUR2D2), a computer application that allows the user to compare search results from a variety of library databases. OUR2D2 supports extensible markup language (XML) files from EndNote and comma-separated values (CSV) files using article titles for comparisons. We conducted unit tests to ensure appropriate functionality as well as accurate data extraction and analysis. We tested OUR2D2 by comparing original and updated search results from PubMed, Embase, Clarivate Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, and Lens and estimate that this application saved twenty-one hours of work during the screening process. CONCLUSIONS: OUR2D2 could be useful for individuals seeking to update literature review strategies across fields without rescreening articles from previous searches. Because the OUR2D2 source code is freely available with a permissive license, we recommend this application for researchers conducting literature reviews who need to update their search results over time, want a powerful and flexible analysis framework, and may not have access to paid subscription tools.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine overlaps and optimal combination of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking for evidence synthesis, based on a previously conducted scoping review on facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-led interventions in dementia care. METHODS: In our 2019 scoping review, we performed a comprehensive literature search in eight databases (CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, MEDLINE, Ovid Nursing Database, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection) and used citation tracking. We retrospectively analyzed the coverage and overlap of 10,527 retrieved studies published between 2015 and 2019. To analyze database overlap, we used cross tables and multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). RESULTS: Of the retrieved studies, 6,944 were duplicates and 3,583 were unique references. Using our search strategies, considerable overlaps can be found in some databases, such as between MEDLINE and Web of Science Core Collection or between CINAHL, Emcare, and PsycINFO. Searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection and using citation tracking were necessary to retrieve all included studies of our scoping review. CONCLUSIONS: Our results can contribute to enhancing future search practice related to database selection in dementia care research. However, due to limited generalizability, researchers and librarians should carefully choose databases based on the research question. More research on optimal database retrieval in dementia care research is required for the development of methodological standards.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding health informatics (HI) publication trends in Saudi Arabia may serve as a framework for future research efforts and contribute toward meeting national "e-Health" goals. The authors' intention was to understand the state of the HI field in Saudi Arabia by exploring publication trends and their alignment with national goals. METHODS: A scoping review was performed to identify HI publications from Saudi Arabia in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. We analyzed publication trends based on topics, keywords, and how they align with the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) "digital health journey" framework. RESULTS: The total number of publications included was 242. We found 1 (0.4%) publication in 1995-1999, 11 (4.5%) publications in 2000-2009, and 230 (95.0%) publications in 2010-2019. We categorized publications into 3 main HI fields and 4 subfields: 73.1% (n=177) of publications were in clinical informatics (85.1%, n=151 medical informatics; 5.6%, n=10 pharmacy informatics; 6.8%, n=12 nursing informatics; 2.3%, n=4 dental informatics); 22.3% (n=54) were in consumer health informatics; and 4.5% (n=11) were in public health informatics. The most common keyword was "medical informatics" (21.5%, n=52). MOH framework-based analysis showed that most publications were categorized as "digitally enabled care" and "digital health foundations." CONCLUSIONS: The years of 2000-2009 may be seen as an infancy stage of the HI field in Saudi Arabia. Exploring how the Saudi Arabian MOH's e-Health initiatives may influence research is valuable for advancing the field. Data exchange and interoperability, artificial intelligence, and intelligent health enterprises might be future research directions in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare pharmacy students' ability to correctly answer drug information questions using Micromedex with Watson, Micromedex without Watson, or Google. METHODS: This multicenter randomized trial compared pharmacy student responses to drug information questions using Micromedex with Watson, Micromedex without Watson, or Google from January to March of 2020. First- to fourth-year pharmacy students at two institutions were included. The primary outcome was the number of correct answers. Secondary outcomes were the time taken to answer the questions and differences in number of correct answers by pharmacy student year and institution. RESULTS: The analysis included 162 participants: 52 students in the Micromedex group, 51 students in the Watson group, and 59 students in the Google group. There was a significant difference among groups in the total number of questions answered correctly (p=0.02). Post-hoc analysis revealed that participants in the Micromedex group answered more questions correctly than those in the Google group (p=0.015). There were no significant differences between Micromedex and Watson groups (p=0.52) or between Watson and Google groups (p=0.22). There was also no difference in time to complete the questions among groups (p=0.72). CONCLUSION: Utilizing Google did not save students time and led to more incorrect answers. These findings suggest that health care educators and health sciences librarians should further reinforce training on the appropriate use of drug information resources.

OBJECTIVE: Research was conducted on the embedded librarian program at The University of Arizona College of Pharmacy and the Health Sciences Library to understand how this service is relevant to users and identify the potential for further improvement. This study examined users' information-seeking behaviors and considered the implications for the effectiveness of the embedded librarian service. METHODS: The authors conducted 18 semi-structured interviews of faculty, researchers, and students at the College of Pharmacy to obtain descriptive accounts of how they seek information, manage information, and use the library and library services. The authors examined the interview transcripts through qualitative descriptive analysis. RESULTS: The interview responses confirm that users seek information outside of the physical library and tend to ask their peers for information or assistance in obtaining information. They mostly feel comfortable in searching, but some of them may lack sufficient search skills and tend to use a few known databases. While those who are familiar with the librarian seek the librarian's assistance more often, others tend not to seek the librarian's assistance. The ways they manage information vary, which requires customized assistance. CONCLUSIONS: The close proximity of a physically embedded librarian is beneficial to users and positions the librarian to provide proactive assistance in the existing user information-seeking behavior environment. While some users do not seek assistance, the embedded librarian can provide proactive assistance in such areas as making users aware of other database options and helping them choose relevant databases and effectively manage information.

OBJECTIVE: There are no existing validated search filters for the group of 37 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. This study describes how information specialists from the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed and evaluated novel OECD countries' geographic search filters for MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) to improve literature search effectiveness for evidence about OECD countries. METHODS: We created the draft filters using an alternative approach to standard filter construction. They are composed entirely of geographic subject headings and are designed to retain OECD country evidence by excluding non-OECD country evidence using the NOT Boolean operator. To evaluate the draft filters' effectiveness, we used MEDLINE and Embase literature searches for three NICE guidelines that retrieved >5,000 search results. A 10% sample of the excluded references was screened to check that OECD country evidence was not inadvertently excluded. RESULTS: The draft MEDLINE filter reduced results for each NICE guideline by 9.5% to 12.9%. In Embase, search results were reduced by 10.7% to 14%. Of the sample references, 7 of 910 (0.8%) were excluded inadvertently. These references were from a guideline about looked-after minors that concerns both OECD and non-OECD countries. CONCLUSION: The draft filters look promising-they reduced search result volumes while retaining most OECD country evidence from MEDLINE and Embase. However, we advise caution when using them in topics about both non-OECD and OECD countries. We have created final versions of the search filters and will validate them in a future study.

OBJECTIVE: In 2018, the Network of the National Libraries of Medicine (NNLM) launched a sponsorship program to support public library staff in completing the Medical Library Association's Consumer Health Information Specialization (CHIS). The objectives of our study were to: (1) determine whether completion of the sponsored specialization improved ability to provide consumer health information; (2) identify new health information services, programming, and outreach activities at public libraries; (3) investigate benefits of the specialization; and (4) determine the impact of sponsorship on obtaining and continuing the specialization. METHODS: We used REDCap to administer a 16-question survey in August 2019 to 224 public library staff who were sponsored during the first year of the program. We measured competence in providing consumer health information aligned with the eight Core Competencies for Providing Consumer Health Information Services [1] as well as new activities at public libraries, benefits of the specialization to public library staff, career gains, and the likelihood of continuing the specialization based on funding. RESULTS: More than 80% of 136 participants reported an increase in core consumer health competencies, with a statistically significant improvement in mean competency scores after completing the specialization. Ninety percent of participants have continued their engagement with NNLM, and more than half offered new health information programs and services. While more than half planned to renew the specialization or obtain the Level II specialization, 72% indicated they would not continue without NNLM sponsorship. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that NNLM sponsorship of the CHIS specialization was successful in increasing the capacity of public library staff to provide health information to their communities.