醫學圖書館員參與系統性文獻回顧：全球引文分析與臺灣發展現況

系統性文獻回顧(Systematic Reviews,SR)整合與特定問題相關的原始文獻，提供臨床人員做出好的決策，而如何在眾多的資料中檢索到適合且品質好的文獻被視為是圖書館員的專業，使館員參與SR的情況值得關注。本研究主要目的是探討全球SR文章概況，採用書目計量法分析醫學圖書館員參與SR與一般SR文章在作者數、主要作者所屬機構國別、引用篇數及被引用次數間的差異，研究對象為收錄於MEDLINE資料庫的22種期刊，在2014年至2017年所出版的SR文章共9,030篇。再從醫學圖書館員和實證醫學中心主任的角度，採用訪談法探討目前臺灣醫學圖書館員參與SR的現況，包括所屬單位提供SR相關服務、參與SR撰寫經驗、對館員參與SR的看法及兩個單位間的關係，訪談三位曾參與SR文章撰寫或SR海報的館員及三位其所屬機構的實證醫學中心主任。研究結果顯示：全球SR文章概況方面，有館員參與SR的文章數呈現逐年成長的趨勢，其中刊登文章數最多的期刊為Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews。SR文章作者特徵方面，作者數集中在3至7人；有館員參與SR文章的主要作者所屬機構以美國最多，一般SR文章則以英國最多；高度發展國家館員參與SR的比率較高。SR文章引文差異方面，館員參與程度與文章引用篇數無顯著相關性，而館員參與程度與文章被引用次數則呈現低度負相關。臺灣醫學圖書館員與實證醫學中心主任參與SR之現況方面，醫學圖書館著重SR文獻檢索服務，實證醫學中心以開設課程為主；參與SR撰寫的經驗的部分，曾參與SR文章的作者數介於4至7人，館員最常協助SR文獻檢索，PRISMA為撰寫SR時最常被遵循的規範，圖資相關科系的背景則有助於館員的參與；對館員參與SR之看法，雙方皆期望有更多館員參與SR，影響臺灣館員參與SR的主因為服務單位環境、主管認知及個人因素，增加SR相關服務則受到人力分配的影響；醫學圖書館與實證醫學中心雙方之間合作密切，好處是可以互相協助，缺點則是館員的工作增加。根據研究結果所提出之建議包括：鼓勵臺灣臨床人員與館員合作撰寫SR文章、國家制定相關政策鼓勵臨床人員撰寫SR、參考國外醫學圖書館已提供的SR相關服務、制定支援SR文獻檢索需求的策略、制定醫學圖書館員與臨床人員合作撰寫SR的配套措施、圖資相關科系增設SR相關的課程內容、館員積極參與各項SR相關課程或研討會及增進醫學圖書館與實證醫學中心的合作。

關鍵字

醫學圖書館員；系統性文獻回顧；引文分析；實證醫學中心

並列摘要

Systematic Reviews (SR) integrate relevant studies on a specific topic and are useful in decision-making. Librarians are professionals in retrieving suitable and high-quality literature, and their participation in SR warrants study. This study provides a global overview of SR articles and used bibliometrics to analyze differences among the number of authors, country of the main author’s institution, and number of citing and times cited of medical librarians participating in SR and general SR articles. The research objects were 22 journals in the MEDLINE database. The number of SR articles published between 2014 and 2017 totaled 9,030. To obtain the perspectives of medical librarians and directors of evidence-based medicine center, this study used interviews to explore the current situation of Taiwanese medical librarians participating in SR; the interviews covered the SR-related services provide, librarians’ and directors’ experience in SR writing, opinions on librarians participating in SR, and their relationships between departments. Three medical librarians who contributed to SR articles or posters and three directors of the evidence-based medicine center of their institution were interviewed. The results of the study revealed the following: (1) In terms of the global SR article overview, the number of SR articles with librarian participation increased yearly. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews had the most articles. (2) In terms of author characteristics, most SR articles had three to seven authors. The main authors with librarian participation in SR were from the United States, and general SR were from the United Kingdom. Librarians in highly developed countries had a higher rate of participation in SR. (3) In terms of SR article citations, no significant correlation was observed between librarian participation and number of citing, and librarian participation and times cited had a weak negative correlation. (4) In terms the SR participation of the interviewed medical librarians and directors of evidence-based medicine center, medical libraries were discovered to focus on SR literature retrieval services, whereas evidence-based medicine centers were found to focus on offering courses. Regarding SR writing experience, the number of authors who participated in writing SR articles is between four and seven. Most librarians assisted in SR literature retrieval. PRISMA was the most commonly followed guideline in SR writing. A background in the department of library and information science helped librarians to participate. Both medical librarians and directors expected more librarians to participate in SR. The main factors affecting Taiwanese librarians’ participation in SR were service department environment, supervisor’s attitude, and personal factors. Increasing SR-related services is affected by the personnel distribution. Medical libraries and evidence-based medicine centers cooperate closely. Although they can assist each other, the librarians’ work increases. Suggestions based on the findings of this study are as follows: (1) Taiwanese clinical staff should be encouraged to cooperate with librarians to write SR articles. (2) The government should formulate policies to encourage clinical staff to write SR. (3) SR-related services provided by foreign medical libraries should be referred. (4) Strategies should be formulated for supportive SR literature retrieval needs. (5) Plans are required to support medical librarian and clinical staff cooperation in SR writing. (6) Departments of library and information science should offer SR-related courses. (7) Librarians should actively participate in SR-related courses and seminars. (8) Cooperation between medical libraries and evidence-based medicine centers should be enhanced.

並列關鍵字

medical librarian ； Systematic Reviews ； citation analysis ； evidence-based medicine center

參考文獻

Dudden, R. F., & Protzko, S. L. (2011). The systematic review team: Contributions of the health sciences librarian. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 30(3), 301-315. doi:10.1080/02763869.2011.590425

Beverley, C. A., Booth, A., & Bath, P. A. (2003). The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: A health information case study. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 20, 65-74. doi:10.1046/j.1471-1842.2003.00411.x

Google Scholar

Bodleian Libraries. (2015). Systematic Reviews. Retrieved from https://libguides.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/systematic-reviews/home

Google Scholar

Campbell, S., & Dorgan, M. (2015). What to do when everyone wants you to collaborate: Managing the demand for library support in systematic review searching. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 36(1), 11-19. doi:10.29173/jchla/jabsc.v36i1.24353

Google Scholar

Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 25(1), 12–37.

Google Scholar

國際替代計量

醫學圖書館員參與系統性文獻回顧：全球引文分析與臺灣發展現況

全文下載

主題瀏覽