Background: To encourage evidence-based practice, an Annals of Internal Medicine editorial called for a new professional on clinical teams: an informationist trained in science or medicine as well as information science.
Objectives: The study explored the effects of informationists on information behaviors of clinical research teams, specifically, frequency of seeking information for clinical or research decisions, range of resources consulted, perceptions about access to information, confidence in adequacy of literature searches, and effects on decision making and practice. It also explored perceptions about training and experience needed for successful informationists.
Purpose: A systematic literature review was conducted to synthesize what is known about informationists, highlight program models, and suggest areas for future research.
Methods: Articles retrieved through database searching were reviewed for relevance. Informationist case reports were identified and coded according to an attributes checklist.
Background: The informationist programme at the Library of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD, USA has grown to 14 informationists working with 40 clinical and basic science research teams.
Purpose: This case report, intended to contribute to the literature on informationist programmes, describes the NIH informationist programme, including implementation experiences, the informationists' training programme, their job responsibilities and programme outcomes.
Brief Description: The NIH informationist programme was designed to enhance the library's service capacity.
Purpose: Building on its 1995 research policy statement, the Medical Library Association (MLA) has issued a new research policy, The Research Imperative. This paper shares the background research that informed the new policy.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fifty-one key informants representing various library types, functions, geographic locations, ages, and ethnicities.
Objective: An information needs study of clinical specialists and biomedical researchers was conducted at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to inform library services and contribute to a broader understanding of information use in academic and research settings.
Methods: A random stratified sample by job category of 500 NIH scientists was surveyed by telephone by an independent consultant using a standardized information industry instrument, augmented with locally developed questions. Results were analyzed for statistical significance using t- tests and chi square.