Domains of professional practice: analysis of publications in the Journal of the Medical Library Association from 2010 to 2019.

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.

Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. DESIGN: Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ARTICLES: We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. RESULTS: 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Assessment of knowledge and skills in information literacy instruction for rehabilitation sciences students: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review investigates how knowledge and skills are assessed in the information literacy (IL) instruction for students in physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech-language pathology, regardless of whether the instruction was given by a librarian. The objectives were to discover what assessment measures were used, determine whether these assessment methods were tested for reliability and validity, and provide librarians with guidance on assessment methods to use in their instruction in evidence-based practice contexts. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used. A systematic search strategy was run in Ovid MEDLINE and adapted for CINAHL; EMBASE; Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) (EBSCO); Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA); Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA); and Proquest Theses and Dissertations from 1990 to January 16, 2017. Forty articles were included for data extraction. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged: types of measures used, type and context of librarian involvement, and skills and outcomes described. Thirty-four measures of attitude and thirty-seven measures of performance were identified. Course products were the most commonly used type of performance measure. Librarians were involved in almost half the studies, most frequently as instructor, but also as author or assessor. Information literacy skills such as question formulation and database searching were described in studies that did not involve a librarian. CONCLUSION: Librarians involved in instructional assessment can use rubrics such as the Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) when grading assignments to improve the measurement of knowledge and skills in course-integrated IL instruction. The Adapted Fresno Test could be modified to better suit the real-life application of IL knowledge and skills.

Integrating the perspectives of individuals with spinal cord injuries, their family caregivers and healthcare professionals from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration: protocol for a scoping study on SCI needs.

INTRODUCTION: There is fragmented information about the different needs following a spinal cord injury (SCI). Expressed SCI needs can be met or unmet, they change along the rehabilitation continuum (eg, acute, rehabilitation and reintegration into the community) and can be different for traumatic and non traumatic SCI. The general objective of this scoping study is to evaluate and integrate the needs of individuals with traumatic and non-traumatic SCI, their family caregivers and those reported by rehabilitation professionals from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration. The specific objectives are to: (A) synthesise the needs of individuals with SCI as perceived by themselves, their family caregivers and rehabilitation professionals using two theoretical models, (B) classify needs as met and unmet, (C) explore the evolution of met/unmet needs from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration and (D) provide recommendations to improve SCI care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: (A) identifying the most frequent met and unmet needs reported by adults with traumatic and non-traumatic SCI, their family caregivers and their rehabilitation professionals from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration; (B) identifying relevant studies with a search in electronic databases; (C) charting the data based on categories refined and adjusted with a stakeholder group; (D) collating, summarising and reporting the results using two analytical frameworks (Maslow's hierarchical model of human needs and the Ferrans et al's model of health-related quality of life) and (E) a stakeholder consultation phase. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this scoping study will allow understanding SCI needs from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration from the perspective of different stakeholders. An integrated master report combining the needs of individuals with SCI from the perspectives of different stakeholders from the time of rehabilitation admission to community reintegration will follow the consultation meetings.

Effectiveness and Economic Evaluation of Chiropractic Care for the Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Pragmatic Studies.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and among the most common reasons for seeking primary sector care. Chiropractors, physical therapists and general practitioners are among those providers that treat LBP patients, but there is only limited evidence regarding the effectiveness and economic evaluation of care offered by these provider groups. PURPOSE: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and to systematically review the literature of full economic evaluation of chiropractic care compared to other commonly used care approaches among adult patients with non-specific LBP. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic reviews of interventions and economic evaluations. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was conducted to identify 1) pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or 2) full economic evaluations of chiropractic care for low back pain compared to standard care delivered by other healthcare providers. Studies published between 1990 and 4th June 2015 were considered. Primary outcomes included pain, functional status and global improvement. Study selection, critical quality appraisal and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Data from RCTs with low risk of bias were included in a meta-analysis to determine effect estimates. Cost estimates of full economic evaluations were converted to 2015 USD and results summarized using Slavin's qualitative best-evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Six RCTs and three full economic evaluations were scientifically admissible. Five RCTs with low risk of bias compared chiropractic care to exercise therapy (n = 1), physical therapy (n = 3) and medical care (n = 1). Overall, we found similar effects for chiropractic care and the other types of care and no reports of serious adverse events. Three low to high quality full economic evaluations studies (one cost-effectiveness, one cost-minimization and one cost-benefit) compared chiropractic to medical care. Given the divergent conclusions (favours chiropractic, favours medical care, equivalent options), mixed-evidence was found for economic evaluations of chiropractic care compared to medical care. CONCLUSION: Moderate evidence suggests that chiropractic care for LBP appears to be equally effective as physical therapy. Limited evidence suggests the same conclusion when chiropractic care is compared to exercise therapy and medical care although no firm conclusion can be reached at this time. No serious adverse events were reported for any type of care. Our review was also unable to clarify whether chiropractic or medical care is more cost-effective. Given the limited available evidence, the decision to seek or to refer patients for chiropractic care should be based on patient preference and values. Future studies are likely to have an important impact on our estimates as these were based on only a few admissible studies.

Effectiveness and economic evaluation of chiropractic care for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). Previous studies have failed to clarify the relative cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care in comparison with other commonly used approaches because previous attempts to synthetize the economic literature has only included partial economic evaluations. The objective of this project is to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care compared to other commonly used care approaches among adult patients with non-specific LBP. METHODS/DESIGN: Two systematic reviews will be conducted to identify 1) randomized controlled trials and 2) full economic evaluations of chiropractic care for low back pain compared to standard care provided by other healthcare providers. We will conduct searches in specialized electronic databases for randomized controlled trials and full economic evaluations published between 1990 and 2014 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. This will be supplemented by a search of the gray literature. Citations, abstracts, and relevant papers will be screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently. Studies will be critically appraised using 1) the Cochrane risk of bias tool and 2) the Drummond (BMJ) checklist. Results will be summarized using Slavin's qualitative best-evidence synthesis approach. Data relating to the primary outcomes of the effectiveness study will be evaluated for inclusion in meta-analyses. The costs will be standardized to the same currency (USD) and adjusted to the same year for inflation. The incremental cost-effectiveness, incremental net benefit, and relevant confidant intervals will be recalculated in order to facilitate comparison between studies. DISCUSSION: Our review will evaluate both the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness associated with chiropractic care for LBP. A more precise estimate of the cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care for LBP relative to other forms of conservative care is needed for decision-makers and third-party payers to offer best care options for LBP. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with LBP and identify key areas for future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered on PROSPERO ( CRD42014008746 ).

Development and content validation of the information assessment method for patients and consumers.

BACKGROUND: Online consumer health information addresses health problems, self-care, disease prevention, and health care services and is intended for the general public. Using this information, people can improve their knowledge, participation in health decision-making, and health. However, there are no comprehensive instruments to evaluate the value of health information from a consumer perspective. OBJECTIVE: We collaborated with information providers to develop and validate the Information Assessment Method for all (IAM4all) that can be used to collect feedback from information consumers (including patients), and to enable a two-way knowledge translation between information providers and consumers. METHODS: Content validation steps were followed to develop the IAM4all questionnaire. The first version was based on a theoretical framework from information science, a critical literature review and prior work. Then, 16 laypersons were interviewed on their experience with online health information and specifically their impression of the IAM4all questionnaire. Based on the summaries and interpretations of interviews, questionnaire items were revised, added, and excluded, thus creating the second version of the questionnaire. Subsequently, a panel of 12 information specialists and 8 health researchers participated in an online survey to rate each questionnaire item for relevance, clarity, representativeness, and specificity. The result of this expert panel contributed to the third, current, version of the questionnaire. RESULTS: The current version of the IAM4all questionnaire is structured by four levels of outcomes of information seeking/receiving: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and health benefits. Following the interviews and the expert panel survey, 9 questionnaire items were confirmed as relevant, clear, representative, and specific. To improve readability and accessibility for users with a lower level of literacy, 19 items were reworded and all inconsistencies in using a passive or active voice have been solved. One item was removed due to redundancy. The current version of the IAM4all questionnaire contains 28 items. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and content validated the IAM4all in partnership with information providers, information specialists, researchers and representatives of information consumers. This questionnaire can be integrated within electronic knowledge resources to stimulate users' reflection (eg, their intention to use information). We claim that any organization (eg, publishers, community organizations, or patient associations), can evaluate and improve their online consumer health information from a consumers' perspective using this method.