Evaluating online health information sources using a mixed methods approach: Part I

Abstract

In the same vein as the evidence based movement, this four-part special issue of Education for Information journal was born of the marriage between information and health sciences research. This interdisciplinary overlap lies at the heart of a unique research group, the Information Technology Primary Care Research Group (ITPCRG), founded at the Department of Family Medicine at McGill University in Montréal, Canada (www.mcgill.ca/familymed/research/projects/itpcrg). The ITPCRG has 31 members, including researchers and research trainees in computer, health and information sciences. The guest editors of this special issue are ITPCRG members. Vera Granikov MLIS PhDc is a research embedded information specialist and Pierre Pluye MD PhD is a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at McGill University. The selected articles showcase the information-related research of this group with the goal of sharing mutually-beneficial insights, methods, and tools.

Since the inception of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) in the 1990s, information professionals have been playing a crucial role in it. Health science librarians created and continue to improve bibliographic tools such as PubMed/MEDLINE, actively participate in defining and developing systematic literature reviews, and helping health professionals answer complex clinical questions at the point-of-care (Eldredge, 2016; Lindberg et al., 1993; Sackett & Straus, 1998; Spencer & Eldredge, 2018). The founders of EBM defined it as the integration of individual clinical expertise with results from the ‘best’ clinical research (Sackett et al., 1996). Since then, the evidence based movement has spread across all health disciplines (e.g., evidence based public health) and refocused to integrate patients’ preferences and values, along with research evidence and medical expertise, in clinical decision-making (Greenhalgh et al., 2014).

In the context of today’s ever-growing body of research, health science librarians play an increasingly important role by supporting health professionals’ EBM practice and teaching EBM skills (Eldredge, 2016). A successful evidence based practice requires skills in searching the literature, as well as appraising and applying evidence in practice (Masic et al., 2008). It is thus impossible to separate the fundamental role of information, information practices, informatics and communication from the ways in which health professions are practiced and taught today, such as nursing, medicine, pharmacy, and so forth.

The articles brought together in this four-part special issue aim to contribute to the continuous improvement of teaching, learning, and professional practices in the information and communication disciplines. The authors present findings on searching for and using information, knowledge synthesis, critical appraisal of research publications, and share innovative and practical methods and tools. The included articles will be valuable to information and communication professionals, those involved in their education, as well as researchers in these domains. Given the leading role of information professionals in developing evidence based library and information practice since early 2000s (Booth, 2002; Crumley & Koufogiannakis, 2002; Eldredge, 2002), this special issue supports the “importance of educating new librarians to take an evidence based approach to their profession” and hopes to play a role in bridging the gap between research and practice (Luo, 2018, p. 556).

All research starts with reviewing the literature. Research studies in Library and Information Science (LIS) use a variety of methodologies and methods, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (Chu, 2015). Therefore, methods related to mixed studies reviews (i.e., reviews that include all types of studies) are particularly relevant for the readers of Education for Information (Pluye & Hong, 2014). Three articles presented in Part 1, each with a distinct focus, address the theme of literature reviews.

In the first one, Hong introduces us to the history of systematic reviews, explaining and illustrating with examples, how, when and why systematic reviews were developed. In the second article in this series, Pluye et al. describe a practical toolkit to support mixed studies reviews, which breaks the process into eight easy steps. This toolkit is available online as a public wiki and will benefit information science students, faculty, and professionals. In the third article in this series, Hong et al. focus specifically on a unique tool for critical appraisal of research studies, called the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

Bujold et al. describe the use of crowdsourcing as a solution best-suited for large reviews on complex and new topics, such as decisional needs of patients with complex health care needs. Crowdsourcing has been proposed as an effective method in literature reviews, potentially enabling faster screening, better transparency, and reduced risk of author bias (Krivosheev et al., 2018). Bujold’s article supports this claim and presents in detail how crowdsourcing can be implemented in a review project. Moreover, this article is interesting as it contributes to the growing conversation on involving and mobilizing crowds to participate in scientific observations and classification, made possible by digital platforms (Kullenberg & Kasperowski, 2016). Awareness of emergent tools, methods, and issues related to literature review methods is critical to information professionals, who not only participate in different aspects of systematic reviews, but enhance their quality and efficiency (Metzendorf & Featherstone, 2018). Therefore, discussion of this topic and practical tools will enrich the training of future information professionals.

Coming full circle on the discussion of the evidence based movement (research results informing practice), the last article in Part 1 discusses what happens when research evidence is proven wrong. Ruchon and Grad present a new and important phenomenon observed in medical evidence, that of evidence reversal. Evidence reversal happens when new and stronger evidence contradicts previous claims (Sutton et al., 2017). Evidence reversal will have obvious implications for practicing health professionals, as well as for information and communication professionals supporting them.

Articles in the forthcoming parts of the special issue will describe innovative health information literacy interventions and practical tools used in health information research. Contributing authors will address the role and value of information and information practices for learning, practice, and teaching in health-related domains, be it for practicing clinicians, residents, medical students, managers, researchers, patients and information consumers.

In conclusion, we hope that the selected articles will benefit information and communication students, faculty, and professionals. Sharing interdisciplinary insights, methods and tools from health information research, will contribute to scholarly activities, education, and evidence based practice in information and communication disciplines. We believe that such interdisciplinary dialogue can only enhance and strengthen both information and health science disciplines.

Footnotes

About the Guest Editors

Vera Granikov MLIS PhDc has been working with ITPCRG as a research embedded information professional for the past 10 years. Being part of the family, she coordinates research projects and provides tailored information services to primary care researchers, clinicians, and students. Vera liked her job so much, that she is now pursuing a doctoral degree in Information Science at McGill University, exploring the factors and outcomes linked to collaborative information monitoring. Vera’s professional work allowed her to continuously learn and apply new skills in a variety of information-related projects, ultimately preparing her for her own research career. She is well acquainted with systematic reviews, mixed methods, as well as community-based and organizational participatory research approaches. Working with ITPCRG enabled Vera to pursue new research questions and partnerships, while ‘serving with purpose’ by promoting informed decision-making, ultimately leading to better health.

Pierre Pluye MD PhD is professor in the Department of Family Medicine at McGill University, FRQS Senior Research Scholar (Quebec Health Research Funds), Director of the Method Development platform at the Quebec SPOR SUPPORT Unit (National Patient Oriented Research Infrastructure), and Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS). In 2017, he received the ‘Researcher of the Year Award’ from the College of Family Physicians of Canada. An academic role he enjoys a lot is that of an Associate Member at the School of Information Studies at McGill University, where he helps teaching, co-supervising, and mentoring information research trainees and health information professionals. Pierre has expertise in mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews (including quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies), as illustrated in several papers within this special issue. His 15-year research program aims to better understand and improve information outcomes, including outcomes for clinicians, managers, patients and the public (e.g., health and well-being outcomes). This program is based on concepts and theories from information science and could not have existed without tremendous insights from his information science trainees and colleagues. In collaboration with Dr. Roland Grad, he co-founded the ITPCRG in the 2007. Since then, he mentored or co-mentored all ITPCRG members as a principal investigator or the main supervisor, which explains (and hopefully excuses) that his name appears in many articles included in this special issue.

References

Booth,

(2002). From EBM to EBL: Two steps forward or one step back? Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 21(3), 51-64.

Chu,

(2015). Research methods in library and information science: A content analysis. Library & Information Science Research, 37(1), 36-41.

Crumley,

, & Koufogiannakis,

(2002). Developing evidence based librarianship: Practical steps for implementation. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 19, 61-70.

Eldredge,

(2002). Evidence based librarianship: An overview. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88(4), 289-302.

Eldredge,

(2016). Integrating research into practice. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(4), 333-337. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.017.

Greenhalgh,

Howick,

, & Maskrey,

(2014). Evidence based medicine: A movement in crisis? British Medical Journal, 348, g3725.

Krivosheev,

Casati,

, & Benatallah,

(2018). Crowd-based multi-predicate screening of papers in literature reviews. arXiv preprint (arXiv:.09814).

Kullenberg,

, & Kasperowski,

D.J.P.o.

(2016). What is citizen science? – A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0147152.

Lindberg,

D.A.

Siegel,

E.R.

Rapp,

B.A.

Wallingford,

K.T.

, & Wilson,

S.R.

(1993). Use of MEDLINE by physicians for clinical problem solving. Journal of American Medical Association, 269(24), 3124-3129.

10.

Luo,

(2018). Experiencing evidence-based library and information practice (eblip): Academic librarians’ perspective. College & Research Libraries, 79(4), 554-566. doi: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.4.554.

11.

Masic,

Miokovic,

, & Muhamedagic,

(2008). Evidence based medicine – new approaches and challenges. Acta Informatica Medica, 16(4), 219-225. doi: 10.5455/aim.2008.16.219-225.

12.

Metzendorf,

, & Featherstone,

(2018). Ensuring quality as the basis of evidence synthesis: Leveraging information specialists’ knowledge, skills, and expertise. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000125.

13.

Pluye,

, & Hong,

(2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: Mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 29-45.

14.

Sackett,

Rosenberg,

Gray,

Haynes,

, & Richardson,

(1996). Evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it is not. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71-72.

15.

Sackett,

, & Straus,

(1998). Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds: The evidence cart. Journal of American Medical Association, 280(15), 1336-1338.

16.

Spencer,

, & Eldredge,

(2018). Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: A scoping review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(1), 46-56. doi: 10.5195/JMLA.2018.82.

17.

Sutton,

Qureshi,

, & Martin,

(2017). Evidence reversal – when new evidence contradicts current claims: A systematic overview review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 94, 76-84.