Abstract
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.
Keywords
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Scope, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced early in the covid-19 pandemic: rapid review
Abstract Objective To appraise the availability, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced in the early stage of the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) pandemic....
Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews
Abstract Techniques for the systematic review of evidence of effectiveness are now well established. Health‐care professionals argue, however, for a need to recognise evidence o...
A Scoping Review and Thematic Classification of Patient Complexity: Offering a Unifying Framework
The path to improving healthcare quality for individuals with complex health conditions is complicated by a lack of common understanding of complexity. Modern medicine, together...
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and tr...
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and tra...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2003
- Type
- review
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- s1
- Pages
- 10-21
- Citations
- 92
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2532.20.s1.2.x