An Examination of Health Information Professionals’ Discourse Surrounding Knowledge Synthesis
A Content Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18060/28782Palabras clave:
Knowledge Synthesis, Evidence Synthesis, professional discourse, health information professionals, health librarians, content analysisResumen
Introduction: Knowledge Synthesis (KS) is an umbrella term that encompasses a family of research methods that aim to draw insights from existing bodies of research literature through established processes of review and analysis. Providing support services for KS is part of many health libraries’ day-to-day business and has been for several years.
Methods: This article presents the results of a content analysis conducted to gain insight into our collective relationship with KS using journal articles and conference abstracts associated with the Canadian Health Libraries Association and the Medical Library Association. The study is framed in terms of three broad questions: What do health information professionals talk about when they discuss knowledge synthesis? How do they talk about it? And who is doing the talking? Descriptive codes and attribute codes were applied to the texts. Descriptive codes were grouped and regrouped to create sub-themes and overall themes in a bottom-up fashion.
Results: Three broad themes are evident in the texts: the Case for KS Work, Everyday Realities of KS, and Pushing Back. KS discourse in the venues examined is currently dominated by the voices of health information professionals working in academic libraries, though this was not always the case.
Commentary: I suggest that our collective relationship with KS work has been changing, and health information professionals are starting to become more comfortable with setting boundaries around KS work.I also suggest that an apparent shift in voice towards academic health information professionals and a general increase in the KS content included in these venues over time could be attributed to 1) the widespread adoption of evidence-based practice among our clientele, and 2) increased emphasis on research impact assessment.
Citas
1. Better together in evidence synthesis: The evidence synthesis taxonomy initiative | JBI [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 4]. Available from: https://evidencesynthesistaxonomy.com/better-together-in-evidence-synthesis-the-evidence-synthesis-taxonomy-initiative/.
2. Slebodnik M, Pardon K, Hermer J. Who’s Publishing Systematic Reviews? An Examination Beyond the Health Sciences. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 Nov 22]; doi:10.29173/istl2671
3. Kallaher A, Eldermire ERB, Fournier CT, Ghezzi-Kopel K, Johnson KA, Morris-Knower J, Scinto-Madonich S, Young S. Library systematic review service supports evidence-based practice outside of medicine. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2020;46:102222. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102222
4. Ghezzi-Kopel K, Ault J, Chimwaza G, Diekmann F, Eldermire E, Gathoni N, Kelly J, Kinengyere AA, Kocher M, Lwoga ET, et al. Making the case for librarian expertise to support evidence synthesis for the sustainable development goals. Research Synthesis Methods. 2022;13:77–87. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1528
5. Premji Z, Splenda R, Young S. An exploration of business librarian participation in knowledge synthesis reviews. College & Research Libraries. 2022;83:314. doi:10.5860/crl.83.2.314
6. Myers B. What we talk about when we talk about medical librarianship: An analysis of Medical Library Association annual meeting abstracts, 2001–2019. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020;108:364–377. doi:10.5195/jmla.2020.836
7. Wilson V. Something for everyone? A content analysis of provincial library association conference sessions. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library & Information Practice & Research. 2010;5:1–13. doi:10.21083/partnership.v5i1.1097
8. Rudd S. Trends in health librarianship topics presented at four UK-based conferences between 2017 and 2022: A thematic analysis. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2024;1–8. doi:10.1111/hir.12561
9. Julien H, Fena C. Thirty-one years of the canadian journal of information and library science: A content analysis. Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences. 2018;42:1–17. No available doi – MH confirmed on 2025/10/14.
10. Chang Y-W. Characteristics of articles coauthored by researchers and practitioners in library and information science journals. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2016;42:535–541. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2016.06.021
11. Sung H-Y, Parboteeah P. Diversity-related research reported in high-impact library and information science journal literature: A content analysis. Library & Information Science Research. 2017;39:77–84. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2017.03.002
12. Hashemian M, Adibi P, Yamani N, Rahimi A, Zare-Farashbandi F. Clinical informationist services challenges: A qualitative content analysis of the literature. Journal of Hospital Librarianship. 2021;21:319–327. doi:10.1080/15323269.2021.1982257
13. Given LM. Constructivism [Internet]. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE publications, Inc.; 2008 [cited 2024 Nov 5].
14. Hewson C. Mixed methods research [Internet]. The SAGE dictionary of social research methods. SAGE publications, Ltd; 2006 [cited 2024 Nov 5].
15. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles ; SAGE; 2013.
16. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3:77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
17. Kiger ME, Varpio L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher. 2020;42:846–854. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
18. NVivo 14. Lumivero; 2023.
19. DeepL Translate: The world’s most accurate translator [Internet]. Cologne Germany: DeepL SE; [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.deepl.com/translator.
20. Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2019;36:202–222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276
21. Conference Programmes / Programmes de congres - Canadian Health Libraries Association / Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.chla-absc.ca/CHLA_FA_LIST_3815985.php.
22. White PJ. Evidence-based medicine for consumers: a role for the Cochrane Collaboration. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90:218–222. No doi available – MH confirmed on 2025/10/14
23. Lohr AM, Van Gorden N, McClelland DJ, Dubinsky E, Gerald LB, Wilkinson-Lee A, Carvajal SC. Updating search strategies for literature reviews with OUR2D2: an open-source computer application. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109:317–322. doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.1105
24. Fang MLE, Persily G, Reavie K, Owen D, Coppernoll-Blach P. Expert Searchers’ Contributions to Evidence-based Health Policy Making [Internet]. Poster presented at: Medical Library Association Annnual Conference; 2006; Pheonix. Available from: https://www.mlanet.org/d/do/1886
25. Fang ML. Medical librarian’s contributions to evidence-based health policy decision making in california [Internet]. Poster presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2013; Boston, MA.
26. Ginier EC, Anderson PF. Librarians in systematic review teams: Extracting patterns of roles and tasks from the published literature [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2018; Atlanta, GA.
27. Price C, Riese V, Lobner K, Friel Blanck J, Anton B. Beyond the Search: Librarian Involvement on the Systematic Review Team [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2015; Austin, TX.
28. Fox ZE, Williams AM, Blasingame MN, Koonce TY, Kusnoor SV, Su J, Lee P, Epelbaum MI, Naylor HM, DesAutels SJ, et al. Why equating all evidence searches to systematic reviews defies their role in information seeking. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107:613–617. doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.707
29. Clifton S, Tonn B, Coffman M, Ditzler W, Hopkins M, Richards J. Connecting the dots: An analysis of search strategy reporting in meta-analyses [Internet]. Poster presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2008; Chicago, IL.
30. Morris M, Boruff JT, Gore GC. Scoping reviews: Establishing the role of the librarian. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104:346–354. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.020
31. Cobus-Kuo L, Gore G, Kloda L. Research syntheses in graduate research: A scoping review [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: CHLA/ABSC Annual Conference; 2014 Jun; Montreal, QC. Available from: https://www.chla-absc.ca/docs/ConferenceProgram2014.pdf
32. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93:74–80. No doi available – MH confirmed on 2025/10/14
33. Nolfi DA, Sasso MD. Situating Systematic Reviews and Librarians at the Nexus of Teaching and Research [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library Association; 2019; Chicago, IL.
34. Wissinger CL. Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process? J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:248–250. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.387
35. Foster MJ, Fulton S, Crews ME, Halling TD, Herbert BE, Sewell R. Reflection of needs: Faculty survey on systematic review experiences and expectations [Internet]. Lightning Talk presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2022; New Orleans, LA.
36. Yang L, Orchanian-Cheff A, Anderson M, Farrell A, Tripp T. Implementing a three-tiered service model for knowledge syntheses at an academic teaching hospital. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada. 2020;41:46–66. doi:10.29173/jchla29436
37. Roth SC. Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:514–520. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.430
38. Desmeules R, Campbell S, Dorgan M. Acknowledging librarians’ contributions to systematic review searching. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2024 Jan 8];37. doi:10.5596/c16-014
39. Ross-White A. An environmental scan of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at Queen’s University: 2020 update. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2024 Jan 8];42. doi:10.29173/jchla29517
40. Townsend WA, Anderson PF, Ginier EC, MacEachern MP, Saylor KM, Shipman BL, Smith JE. A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105:268–275. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.189
41. Tietgen JJ, Vardell E. Paths to Systematic Review Librarianship: An Exploratory Study [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2021; Virtual
42. Justice EM, Belleh E, Easterby-Gannett S, Moran D, Evans J, Riesenberg LA. Finding our way in the world of systematic reviews: Hospital librarians contribute to the creation of systematic reviews [Internet]. Poster presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2013; Boston, MA.
43. Demetres MR, Wright DN, DeRosa AP. Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: An exploratory study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020;108:89–97. doi:10.5195/jmla.2020.665
44. Howard AM, Butcher N. Daring to realize the dream of published systematic reviews [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2017; Seattle, WA.
45. Nicholson J, McCrillis A, Williams JD. Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105:385–393. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.176
46. Saragossi J. Bibliometric analysis as a method to justify library personnel [Internet]. Lightning Talk presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2022; New Orleans, LA.
47. Saimbert MK, Pierce J (Jenny), Hargwood P, Oliver JT. Librarians collaborating with faculty for scholarly publication [Internet]. Poster presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2011; Minneapolis, MN.
48. Krause K, Varman BG, Galati M, Huynh N. Systematic reviews: The evolution of a new library service [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: CHLA/ABSC - MLA Joint Conference; 2016 May; Toronto, ON.
49. Lackey MJ, Greenberg H, Rethlefsen ML. Building the systematic review core in an academic health sciences library. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107:588–594. doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.711
50. Deaver J, O’Hagan EC, Billings R. Reflecting on librarians’ needs: Renewing a systematic review service [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2022; New Orleans, LA.
51. Sikora L, Bass MB. Sharpening the other side of the dual edged systematic review sword: Expecting more from our users [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: CHLA/ABSC Annual Conference; 2018 Jun; St. John’s, NL. Available from: https://www.chla-absc.ca/docs/chlaabsc18program.pdf
52. Calleja S, Zeigler C. Required, not suggested: Creating a rigorous protocol template for improved uptake and efficacy [Internet]. Poster presented at: CHLA/ABSC Annual Conference; 2023 Jun; Halifax, NS. Available from: https://www.chla-absc.ca/docs/CHLAABSC2023_FullProgram_20230525.pdf
53. Campbell S, Dorgan M. What to do when everyone wants you to collaborate: Managing the demand for library support in systematic review searching. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2015;36:11–19. doi: 10.29173/jchla/jabsc.v36i1.24353.
54. Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: A scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:46–56. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.82.
55. Ettarh F. Vocational awe and librarianship: The lies we tell ourselves. In the Library with the Lead Pipe [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2024 July 19]; Available from: https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/
56. Bramer WM. Information specialists: Guardians of scientific output of their institute [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2022; New Orleans, LA.
57. Hanneke R. The hidden benefits of helping students with systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:244–247. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.420
58. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–72. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
59. McMenamin A, Sun C, Prufeta P, Raso R. The evolution of evidence-based practice. Nursing Management. 2019;50:14. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000579000.09987.b0
60. Funk ME. Our words, our story: A textual analysis of articles published in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association/Journal of the Medical Library Association from 1961 to 2010. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013;101:12–20. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.003
61. About Us [Internet]. ShanghaiRanking. [cited 2024 Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.shanghairanking.com/about-arwu
62. World University Rankings [Internet]. Times Higher Education (THE). 2018 [cited 2024 Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings
63. Hirsch JE. An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2005;102:16569–16572.
64. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the index? A comparison of nine different variants of the index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2008;59:830–837. doi:10.1002/asi.20806
65. Reflecting on 20 years of knowledge discovery: 20 years of supporting research and innovation [Internet]. www.elsevier.com. [cited 2024 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/20-years-of-discovery.
66. Scopus 20: 20 Years of supporting research and innovation [infographic] [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 15]. Available from: https://images.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/7gQ1lpfQnPhIkyoSu0g8Wi/9f15d41b3534c0ed9c7ff5ecfc19a3d8/Scopus_20_infographic_v2.jpg.
67. Read the Declaration [Internet]. DORA. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from: https://sfdora.org/read/.
68. Watts G. Research funding goes metric. BMJ. 2008;337:a1805. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1805
69. Hicks D. Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy. 2012;41:251–261. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007
70. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. BMC Med. 2003;1:1–7. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-1-2
71. Bhandari M, Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB. Doubling the impact: Publication of systematic review articles in orthopaedic journals. JBJS. 2004;86:1012.
72. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JPA. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005;293:2362–2366. doi:10.1001/jama.293.19.2362
73. Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2002;287:2799–2802. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2799
74. Hicks D. The construction of librarians’ professional identities: A discourse analysis / La construction de l’identité professionnelle du bibliothécaire : Une analyse de discours. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science. 2014;38:251–270.
75. Neilson C. Data files for: An examination of health information professionals’ discourse surrounding knowledge synthesis: A content analysis [Internet]. Borealis; 2025 [cited 2025 Aug 22]. Available from: https://borealisdata.ca/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.5683/SP3/TJUCSG.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Categorías
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Christine Neilson
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
All works in Hypothesis are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Authors own copyright of their articles appearing in Hypothesis. Readers may copy articles without permission of the copyright owner(s), as long as the author(s) and the Medical Library Association are acknowledged in the copy, and the copy is used for educational, not-for-profit purposes. For any other use of articles, please contact the copyright owner(s).
