TY - JOUR
T1 - Searching for evidence in public health emergencies
T2 - a white paper of best practices
AU - Brody, Stacy
AU - Loree, Sara
AU - Sampson, Margaret
AU - Mensinkai, Shaila
AU - Coffman, Jennifer
AU - Mueller, Mark Heinrich
AU - Askin, Nicole
AU - Hamill, Cheryl
AU - Wilson, Emma
AU - McAteer, Mary Beth
AU - Staines, Heather
AU - Hamill, Cheryl
AU - Dobbins, Maureen
AU - Claussen, Amy M.
AU - Kothari, Kavita Umesh
AU - De Brún, Caroline
AU - Young, Sarah
AU - Neil-Sztramko, Sarah E.
AU - Wilson, Emma
AU - Featherstone, Robin M.
AU - Sampson, Margaret
AU - Staines, Heather
AU - Knuth, Martha
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, Medical Library Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/1/1
Y1 - 2023/1/1
N2 - Objectives: Information professionals have supported medical providers, administrators and decision-makers, and guideline creators in the COVID-19 response. Searching COVID-19 literature presented new challenges, including the volume and heterogeneity of literature and the proliferation of new information sources, and exposed existing issues in metadata and publishing. An expert panel developed best practices, including recommendations, elaborations, and examples, for searching during public health emergencies. Methods: Project directors and advisors developed core elements from experience and literature. Experts, identified by affiliation with evidence synthesis groups, COVID-19 search experience, and nomination, responded to an online survey to reach consensus on core elements. Expert participants provided written responses to guiding questions. A synthesis of responses provided the foundation for focus group discussions. A writing group then drafted the best practices into a statement. Experts reviewed the statement prior to dissemination. Results: Twelve information professionals contributed to best practice recommendations on six elements: core resources, search strategies, publication types, transparency and reproducibility, collaboration, and conducting research. Underlying principles across recommendations include timeliness, openness, balance, preparedness, and responsiveness. Conclusions: The authors and experts anticipate the recommendations for searching for evidence during public health emergencies will help information specialists, librarians, evidence synthesis groups, researchers, and decision-makers respond to future public health emergencies, including but not limited to disease outbreaks. The recommendations complement existing guidance by addressing concerns specific to emergency response. The statement is intended as a living document. Future revisions should solicit input from a broader community and reflect conclusions of meta-research on COVID-19 and health emergencies.
AB - Objectives: Information professionals have supported medical providers, administrators and decision-makers, and guideline creators in the COVID-19 response. Searching COVID-19 literature presented new challenges, including the volume and heterogeneity of literature and the proliferation of new information sources, and exposed existing issues in metadata and publishing. An expert panel developed best practices, including recommendations, elaborations, and examples, for searching during public health emergencies. Methods: Project directors and advisors developed core elements from experience and literature. Experts, identified by affiliation with evidence synthesis groups, COVID-19 search experience, and nomination, responded to an online survey to reach consensus on core elements. Expert participants provided written responses to guiding questions. A synthesis of responses provided the foundation for focus group discussions. A writing group then drafted the best practices into a statement. Experts reviewed the statement prior to dissemination. Results: Twelve information professionals contributed to best practice recommendations on six elements: core resources, search strategies, publication types, transparency and reproducibility, collaboration, and conducting research. Underlying principles across recommendations include timeliness, openness, balance, preparedness, and responsiveness. Conclusions: The authors and experts anticipate the recommendations for searching for evidence during public health emergencies will help information specialists, librarians, evidence synthesis groups, researchers, and decision-makers respond to future public health emergencies, including but not limited to disease outbreaks. The recommendations complement existing guidance by addressing concerns specific to emergency response. The statement is intended as a living document. Future revisions should solicit input from a broader community and reflect conclusions of meta-research on COVID-19 and health emergencies.
KW - Collaboration
KW - emergency response
KW - information retrieval
KW - methods
KW - rapid review
KW - systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85158096434&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85158096434&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5195/jmla.2023.1530
DO - 10.5195/jmla.2023.1530
M3 - Article
C2 - 37312802
AN - SCOPUS:85158096434
SN - 1536-5050
VL - 111
SP - 566
EP - 578
JO - Journal of the Medical Library Association
JF - Journal of the Medical Library Association
IS - 1-2
ER -