Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality

Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality:

a JBI Centre of Excellence

site header




Location: Grandview Ballroom, Delta Hotel







Location: Grandview Ballroom, Delta Hotel

Tweet, Snapchat and Text, Oh My! Role of Social Media in KT

Dr. Lisa Hopp, PhD, RN FAAN
Interim Dean and Professor, College of Nursing

Co-Director, Indiana Center for Evidence Based Nursing Practice

Purdue University




Contributed Papers, Session 1: The Librarian on the Systematic Review Team


Getting started on a systematic review on interactive e-learning – lessons learned

Naz Torabi,MLIS

Health Sciences Librarian

McGill University

Background:  There are many challenges involved in conducting a systematic review. The first challenge could be finding partners interested in conducting a systematic review, with similar or complementary skills, who understand systematic review methodology, and are committed to its long process.  The second most common challenge is getting started on a systematic review by determining the scope of the project, conducting a preliminary search, refining the research question, identifying the appropriate sources of information, refining the search strategies, determining exclusion and inclusion criteria, agreeing on common documentation strategies, and establishing research practices and processes. These can be challenging especially with long distance collaborators.    Discussions and Conclusion:  Kumaran and Torabi of this presentation will speak about how they came together, reasons for their partnership, their decision on the topic, and their progress so far in conducting a systematic review on interactive e-learning. They will elaborate on lessons they learnt from this experience, and how they plan on moving forward. They will also discuss the steps involved in getting started with conducting a systematic review: the preliminary pilot project which leads to the creation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, concepts clarification (i.e. interactivity), data analysis and writing the PRISMA flowchart. They will provide tips on how to address the two challenges outlined above. Also drawn from the authors’ experience conducting systematic reviews and scoping reviews in collaboration with faculty in health sciences programs, they will describe several important considerations in writing a systematic review protocol.


Players on a Team: Building Systematic Review Capacity with Librarian Involvement

Lisa Demczuk, AHIP, MLS

College of Nursing

University of Manitoba

A Canadian College of Nursing, under the leadership of its affiliated research centre, undertook to build capacity in performing systematic reviews according to the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Throughout this process various players were involved, including the College’s nursing liaison librarian.   Objectives This presentation will provide a description and reflection on the process of systematic review capacity-building within a college of Nursing. The central role of the research centre as systematic review organizer, funder and coach will be described. The librarian’s role in the capacity-building process, as partner to both the research centre and various systematic review teams, will also be examined. Examples of the librarian role and activities to be discussed include that of expert searcher, trainer, trouble-shooter, resource-builder, writer, reviewer and collaborator. The various challenges and achievements encountered along the way will be highlighted as learning moments.  Conclusion Throughout the capacity-building process, key lessons have been learned that will help the College move forward in its engagement with systematic reviews. These lessons may be applicable to other centres and librarians in their involvement with systematic review teams.


Supporting Systematic Reviews

Rachel Couban, MI(LIS)

President of the Ontario Health Libraries Association

McMaster University

Background: My experience supporting systematic reviews since 2006 is something I am keen to share. As Research Co-ordinator I support various projects including clinical practice guidelines, prognosis reviews, and effectiveness studies. How can we work together to make the systematic review process a rewarding one for everyone involved? Objectives: I will share my strategies for supporting systematic reviews in three phases of the SR literature search, and review how to use the tools that exist to make the work flow more smoothly in each phase. Methods: Will present on three phases of the SR lit search. 

1.   Topic definition. Using Epistemonikos and Prospero SR to identify existing reviews and locate your review in the constellation of research. 

2.   Development of the search strategy. Using search blocks and validation sets to develop comprehensive searches, helping reviewers determine the scope of their search and plan for the next steps. Using ClinicalTrials.gov and setting auto-alerts to support your topic going forwards.

3.   Processing of results. Using bibliographic software and forms to process the search results in an efficient way eg according to the PRISMA rules and so that authors may track kappa statistics on agreement while screening in duplicate 

Discussion and Conclusion: Systematic reviews are collaborative undertakings, no one is alone. Many efficiencies have been introduced into the process of literature searching for systematic reviews, and really helpful tools exist to make the work more rewarding for everyone. This allows us to deliver knowledge synthesis responsively, so we can support clinicians as they LEAP toward new challenges




Contributed Papers, Session 2: Advancing Knowledge and Expertise as a Systematic Review Librarian


Librarians’ Systematic Review Knowledge and Skills: Learning Across the Continuum of Beginner to Expert

Dr. Catherine Boden, MLIS, PhD

Health Sciences Liaison Librarian

University of Saskatchewan

Background. Many granting agencies and systematic review bodies recommend that information specialists be included on syntheses review teams to contribute their literature searching expertise.  Additionally, there is an increasing interest in conducting systematic reviews by health sciences researchers and librarians. Systematic review methodology, including expert searching, is rarely taught in library and information science Masters degrees.  While excellent continuing education opportunities are available, there is little research about the most effective mechanisms to foster learning across a continuum from initial acquisition to enrichment and updating of systematic review skills and knowledge.   Objectives. To conduct a learning needs assessment of health sciences librarians having various levels of experience with systematic reviews.  Methods. A learning needs questionnaire will be developed based on evidence from the literature and from focus groups with librarian and non-librarian systematic review experts.  The questionnaire will be designed within the context of Clarke and Hollingsworth’s (2002) model of professional growth.  The questionnaire will consist of multiple choice, Likert and short answer questions about professional identity, systematic review experience, preferred learning topics and methods, motivations, incentives, challenges and barriers.  The online questionnaire will be distributed to health sciences librarians across Canada and the United States.  Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics (multiple choice and Likert questions) and thematic analysis (short answer questions).  Discriminant function analysis will be employed to distinguish beginner from advanced learning needs.  A triangulation method will be employed to synthesize the evidence from the literature, focus groups, and questionnaire to evaluate and describe learning needs across a continuum from beginner to advanced.  Discussion. This data will inform our understanding of the learning needs of librarians at various levels of systematic review expertise.  We will provide recommendations for training mechanisms and supports for librarians wishing to learn some or all aspects of systematic review methodology, as well as librarians currently supporting or conducting systematic reviews who want to upgrade their knowledge and skills.


Conducting a Citation Management Software Evaluation for Systematic Reviews: A Librarian’s Guide

Danielle Rabb, MLIS

Research Information Specialist


Background: With so many citation management software (CMS) programs available on the market today, such as Endnote, Reference Manager, RefWorks, and Mendeley, each with its own unique strengths and options, how do you choose the best one for your organization’s needs? One challenge in conducting a systematic review (SR) is the magnitude of information to navigate, such as articles, data, citations, etc. Once a literature search is complete and the citations are acquired, how do you keep track of it all? A Librarian, as part of a SR team, can determine how to best manage all of this information, and in particular, the citations.   Objectives: We outline the criteria and methods for how a Librarian can examine the best citation management software for your SR team and organization.    Methods/Results: A CMS is a key tool in a SR and is a significant investment in resources, including time, money, and staff. Using CADTH's current CMS evaluation as an example, we will examine the key steps in selecting and evaluating a CMS to ensure you get the right program to meet your needs. The steps in this process include: forming a committee, developing criteria, finding options, investigating and documenting how the CMS meets your criteria, and establishing return on investment (ROI).   Discussion/Conclusion: The role of a Librarian in a SR is not limited to a literature search. Our skills and expertise can be applied to the organization of information gathered, which brings added value to the team. CMS programs are an integral part of a SR and when well-chosen, can speed up the SR process, as well as ensuring the accuracy and integrity of information acquired. Librarians can play a leading role in choosing the right CMS for a SR.


Developing a Systematic Review Service

Sandra McKeown, MLIS

Health Sciences Librarian

Queen’s University

Background: Librarians at Bracken Health Sciences Library at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario have been increasingly supporting faculty and students conducting systematic reviews (SRs) over the years without having a formalized service in place. Objective: To describe the process undertaken to formalize librarian SR activities into a more purposeful and standardized service. Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify accounts of other health sciences libraries offering SR support and any related literature discussing potential roles for health sciences libraries in the SR process. A selection of Canadian and American health sciences library websites were reviewed for examples of library support for SRs. Brainstorming sessions with Queen’s University librarians took place to discuss the feasibility and practicalities of various levels of librarian support that could potentially be offered to faculty and students undertaking SRs. Results: Outcomes will be reported for the formalized SR service that is implemented and trialed between May and September 2016, including: marketing and promotion, service assessment and lessons learned. Discussion: Librarians can contribute crucial and invaluable expertise to SR teams in areas such as: comprehensive searching to identify both published and unpublished research studies, information management strategies, and recording and accurately communicating reproducible search strategies. Formalized SR library services have the potential to increase the standard of service provided by fostering more meaningful and purposeful librarian engagement in SRs. It can also better position librarians to communicate and market their library-related SR skills. Implications: This account of formalizing a library SR service at Queen’s University offers practical insight into developing a SR service that may be useful for librarians interested, or involved in, systematic review activities.





Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies

Dr. Margaret Sampson, MLIS, PhD

Evidence shows that quality is enhanced when there is peer review of the electronic search strategies developed for systematic review (SR) and health technology assessment (HTA) reports. The PRESS Guideline provides a set of recommendations concerning the information that should be used by librarians and other information specialists when they are asked to evaluate these electronic search strategies. This 2015 guideline updates and expands upon the 2008 and 2010 PRESS publications. Participants are encouraged to print out and bring a MEDLINE strategy for review by another workshop participant.


TOUR/DINNER: A tour of historic Kingston on vintage Tour Trolleys and dine-around dinners at area restaurants.