Expert searching in public health.

OBJECTIVE: The article explores the characteristics of public health information needs and the resources available to address those needs that distinguish it as an area of searching requiring particular expertise. METHODS: Public health searching activities from reference questions and literature search requests at a large, urban health department library were reviewed to identify the challenges in finding relevant public health information. RESULTS: The terminology of the information request frequently differed from the vocabularies available in the databases. Searches required the use of multiple databases and/or Web resources with diverse interfaces. Issues of the scope and features of the databases relevant to the search questions were considered. CONCLUSION: Expert searching in public health differs from other types of expert searching in the subject breadth and technical demands of the databases to be searched, the fluidity and lack of standardization of the vocabulary, and the relative scarcity of high-quality investigations at the appropriate level of geographic specificity. Health sciences librarians require a broad exposure to databases, gray literature, and public health terminology to perform as expert searchers in public health.     

Access to human,animal, and environmental journals is still limited for the One Health community

Objective

“One Health” is an interdisciplinary approach to evaluating and managing the health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environments they share that relies on knowledge from the domains of human health, animal health, and the environmental sciences. The authors'' objective was to evaluate the extent of open access (OA) to journal articles in a sample of literature from these domains. We hypothesized that OA to articles in human health or environmental journals was greater than access to animal health literature.

Methods

A One Health seminar series provided fifteen topics. One librarian translated each topic into a search strategy and searched four databases for articles from 2011 to 2012. Two independent investigators assigned each article to human health, the environment, animal health, all, other, or combined categories. Article and journal-level OA were determined. Each journal was also assigned a subject category and its indexing evaluated.

Results

Searches retrieved 2,651 unique articles from 1,138 journals; 1,919 (72%) articles came from 406 journals that contributed more than 1 article. Seventy-seven (7%) journals dealt with all 3 One Health domains; the remaining journals represented human health 487 (43%), environment 172 (15%), animal health 141 (12%), and other/combined categories 261 (23%). The proportion of OA journals in animal health (40%) differed significantly from journals categorized as human (28%), environment (28%), and more than 1 category (29%). The proportion of OA for articles by subject categories ranged from 25%–34%; only the difference between human (34%) and environment (25%) was significant.

Conclusions

OA to human health literature is more comparable to animal health than hypothesized. Environmental journals had less OA than anticipated.Keywords (Medical Subject Headings) Publishing, Periodicals as Topic, Access to Information, Veterinary Medicine, Environment, Environmental Health, Medicine“One Health” is an integrated, transdisciplinary approach to solve complex problems at the diverse interfaces shared by humans, animals, and the environment [1]. The One Health approach to evaluating and managing the health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environments that they share relies on knowledge from the domains of human health, animal health, and the environmental sciences. Although there is a growing body of literature about the development of the One Health concept as documented by Pepper, Carrigan, Shurtz, and Foster [2], this literature is not the same as the combination of literature from the three domains that is applied in service of One Health. Every discipline related to One Health has its unique mindset and language, with corresponding lists of acronyms that are frequently an impediment to effective communication across the participating professions. Relevant papers guiding a One Health approach may never specifically use “One Health” as a term or concept.To promote better communication and collaboration among health professionals and environmental scientists, a public monthly One Health Intellectual Exchange Group (IEG) hosted by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center was launched in 2009. In 2011, faculty from the North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, University of North Carolina''s Gillings School for Global Public Health, Duke Global Health Institute, and Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University expanded the IEG series into a weekly seminar course with eight One Health focus areas [3]. The eight focus area modules were the following: an introduction to One Health; environmental health and ecology; the human and animal bond; zoonoses and emerging infectious diseases; food and water safety; disease surveillance, informatics, and disaster preparedness; benefits of comparative medicine; and policy and education (Appendix A, online only). Each seminar speaker recommended papers to read prior to the session to provide a foundation for the topic because student backgrounds and majors were quite diverse. Represented student majors included master''s of public health, master''s of animal science, doctor of veterinary medicine, graduate-level environmental sciences, and undergraduate-level biochemistry, engineering, and biology.Open access (OA) to relevant literature is very important to scholars and practitioners working on interdisciplinary problems. The One Health Proof of Concept Workgroup found that few studies assess outcomes in human, animal, and environmental spheres simultaneously [4], making it important to be able to access articles from each of the three domains to get a more complete picture.The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent of OA to journal articles in a sample of literature relevant to One Health from the human, animal, and environmental domains. Working in a college of veterinary medicine and supporting faculty, staff, and students addressing interdisciplinary problems under the One Health umbrella [5], the authors were familiar with the extent of OA in human biomedical and public health literature and the literature of veterinary medicine but were less familiar with environmental journals. In light of general availability of environmental information and OA to publications such as Environmental Health Perspectives, we thought it likely that environmental literature would be relatively open compared to the other subject areas. Therefore, we hypothesized OA to articles from human health or environmental journals was greater than access to animal health literature. We chose to look at article-level subject categorization and access, as well as journal-level categorization and access, because they might differ. Article-level access relates more to authors'' decisions about OA for a content domain, while journal-level access and subject categorization are driven by publishers and associations. Understanding the distinction and having data would inform our efforts to promote increased OA to this literature.     

The employment styles of school principals recruiting beginning teachers

In New Zealand, school principals (headteachers), sometimes with a sub-committee of the school board of trustees, interview and hire their own teachers. This research examined whether school principals exhibit different styles in recruiting beginning teachers. A small group of principals was interviewed and items reflecting their views were then developed and put on cards. The cards were sorted by people familiar with educational vocabulary to enable category setting using Kirkland and Bimmler's GOPA technique. Seventy-one principals then prioritized the items. A k-means algorithm was used to cluster principals with similar responses. Analysis of the clusters suggests that recruiting styles do exist. General compatibility emerged as being most important. This suggests that having schools appoint their own staff may lead to greater diversity between schools and greater conformity within them.     

Scanning technology selection impacts acceptability and usefulness of image-rich content

Objective

Clinical and research usefulness of articles can depend on image quality. This study addressed whether scans of figures in black and white (B&W), grayscale, or color, or portable document format (PDF) to tagged image file format (TIFF) conversions as provided by interlibrary loan or document delivery were viewed as acceptable or useful by radiologists or pathologists.

Methods

Residency coordinators selected eighteen figures from studies from radiology, clinical pathology, and anatomic pathology journals. With original PDF controls, each figure was prepared in three or four experimental conditions: PDF conversion to TIFF, and scans from print in B&W, grayscale, and color. Twelve independent observers indicated whether they could identify the features and whether the image quality was acceptable. They also ranked all the experimental conditions of each figure in terms of usefulness.

Results

Of 982 assessments of 87 anatomic pathology, 83 clinical pathology, and 77 radiology images, 471 (48%) were unidentifiable. Unidentifiability of originals (4%) and conversions (10%) was low. For scans, unidentifiability ranged from 53% for color, to 74% for grayscale, to 97% for B&W. Of 987 responses about acceptability (n=405), 41% were said to be unacceptable, 97% of B&W, 66% of grayscale, 41% of color, and 1% of conversions. Hypothesized order (original, conversion, color, grayscale, B&W) matched 67% of rankings (n=215).

Conclusions

PDF to TIFF conversion provided acceptable content. Color images are rarely useful in grayscale (12%) or B&W (less than 1%). Acceptability of grayscale scans of noncolor originals was 52%. Digital originals are needed for most images. Print images in color or grayscale should be scanned using those modalities.     

Library involvement in health informatics education for health professions students and practitioners: a scoping review

Objective:The purpose of this scoping review is to evaluate the extent of library or librarian involvement in informatics education in the health domain.Methods:We searched eight databases from their inception to 2019 for reports of informatics educational activities for health professionals or health professions students that involved library staff or resources. Two reviewers independently screened all titles/abstracts (n=2,196) and resolved inclusion decisions by consensus. From the full text of the 36 papers that met the inclusion criteria, we extracted data on 41 educational activities.Results:The most frequent coded purposes of activities were “teaching clinical tools” (n=19, 46.3%) and “technology” (n=17; 41.5%). Medical students were the most frequent primary audience (34.1%), though 41.5% of activities had multiple audiences. Evaluation was reported for 24 activities (58.5%), only a few of which assessed short or post-activity impact on attitudes, knowledge, or skills. The most common long-term outcome was applying skills in other courses or clinical experiences. Thematic analysis yielded three areas of outcomes and issues for the library and organizational partners: expanded opportunities, technology and resource issues, and value demonstration.Conclusions:Limited published examples of health informatics educational activities provide models for library roles in informatics education. More librarians should report on their informatics educational activities and provide sufficient details on the interventions and their evaluation. This would strengthen the evidence base about the potential impact of libraries within informatics education.