Clinical librarianship: a systematic review of the literature.

Clicks: 214
ID: 22209
2003
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Star

Ranked #14 of 55 articles by views in health information and libraries journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Clinical librarianship (CL), currently receiving renewed interest world-wide, seeks to provide quality-filtered information to health professionals at the point of need to support clinical decision-making. This review builds upon the work of Cimpl (Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 1985, 73, 21-8) and attempts to establish the evidence base for CL. The objectives were to determine, from the literature, whether CL services are used by clinicians, have an effect on patient care, and/or clinicians' use of literature in practice and/or are cost-effective. The methodology used was a systematic review of the literature, following, where possible, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) framework. Modifications to this methodology included the resources searched, and the critical appraisal checklist (CriSTAL) used. Two hundred and eighty-four unique references were retrieved. Seventeen (16 unique) evaluative and a further 33 descriptive studies met the inclusion criteria. The quality of reporting of the literature was generally poor. CL programmes appear to be well-used and received by clinicians. However, there is insufficient evidence available on their effect on patient care, clinicians' use of literature in practice, and their cost-effectiveness, thus highlighting the need for further high-quality research.
Reference Key
winning2003clinicalhealth Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Winning, M A;Beverley, C A;
Journal health information and libraries journal
Year 2003
DOI
DOI not found
URL URL not found
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.