Meeting a need: development and validation of PubMed search filters for immigrant populations.

Objective: There is a need for additional comprehensive and validated filters to find relevant references more efficiently in the growing body of research on immigrant populations. Our goal was to create reliable search filters that direct librarians and researchers to pertinent studies indexed in PubMed about health topics specific to immigrant populations. Methods: We applied a systematic and multi-step process that combined information from expert input, authoritative sources, automation, and manual review of sources. We established a focused scope and eligibility criteria, which we used to create the development and validation sets. We formed a term ranking system that resulted in the creation of two filters: an immigrant-specific and an immigrant-sensitive search filter. Results: When tested against the validation set, the specific filter sensitivity was 88.09%, specificity 97.26%, precision 97.88%, and the NNR 1.02. The sensitive filter sensitivity was 97.76%when tested against the development set. The sensitive filter had a sensitivity of 97.14%, specificity of 82.05%, precision of 88.59%, accuracy of 90.94%, and NNR [See Table 1] of 1.13 when tested against the validation set. Conclusion: We accomplished our goal of developing PubMed search filters to help researchers retrieve studies about immigrants. The specific and sensitive PubMed search filters give information professionals and researchers options to maximize the specificity and precision or increase the sensitivity of their search for relevant studies in PubMed. Both search filters generated strong performance measurements and can be used as-is, to capture a subset of immigrant-related literature, or adapted and revised to fit the unique research needs of specific project teams (e.g. remove US-centric language, add location-specific terminology, or expand the search strategy to include terms for the topic/s being investigated in the immigrant population identified by the filter). There is also a potential for teams to employ the search filter development process described here for their own topics and use.

The Medical Institutional Repositories in Libraries (MIRL) Symposium: a blueprint designed in response to a community of practice need.

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 institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study uses survey research methods to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional repository (IR) landscape in medical schools and academic health centers. METHODS: Members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) were surveyed about their IRs. The authors used a mixed-methods approach of a survey and qualitative content analysis to identify common themes. RESULTS: Survey results indicate that a large majority of responding medical schools and academic health centers have or are implementing an IR (35 out of 50, 70%). Of these, 60% (21 institutions) participate in an institution-wide IR rather than administer their own repositories. Much of the archived content is grey literature that has not already been published, but the percentage of original content varies greatly among institutions. The majority (57.1%) of respondent institutions are not considering an open access policy or mandate. Most institutions (71.4%) reported that repository staff are depositing materials on behalf of users. DSpace and bepress Digital Commons are the most popular repository platforms in this community. The planned enhancements that were most frequently reported were implementing a discovery layer and ORCID integration. The majority of respondents (54.3%) do not plan to migrate to a different platform in the foreseeable future. Analysis of respondent comments identified the following themes: integration, redundancy, and reporting; alternatives and exploration; uniqueness; participation; and funding and operations. CONCLUSIONS: The study results capture a view of the IR landscape in medical schools and academic health centers and help readers understand what services their peers have in place as well as their plans for future developments.