Applying the Evidence

1
Applying the Evidence

• Where to Now?

2
The Story So Far.

• Back to the FOLIO EBLIP-Gloss Course
• So far we have ASKed the question What evidence
  is there that Information Clinics are providing
  the same level of tuition or better than the
  traditional one-to-one format?
• We have ACQUIREd some evidence looking at
  different group sizes and their subsequent use of
  skills.
• We have APPRAISEd the evidence using the RELIANT
  Checklist.

3
How do we APPLY the evidence

• Ideally we would like Evidence that is Directly
  Applicable. However more commonly we will
  encounter Evidence that needs to be Locally
  Validated, perhaps through a survey or audit of
  local services. In our general reading we will
  encounter Evidence that Improves
  Understanding.(Koufogiannakis and Crumley, 2004)
• A final category of useful material is Evidence
  that may inform our Choice of Methodologies,
  Tools or Instruments (Booth, 2004)

4
As Koufogiannakis and Crumley state

• "When using research to help with a question,
  look for high quality studies, but do not be too
  quick to dismiss everything as irrelevant. Try to
  take what does apply from the research and use it
  to resolve the problem at hand" (Koufogiannakis
  and Crumley, 2004)

5
In our case

• The study we found (Ayre, 2006) has a good match
  (Directly Applicable) to some of our target
  population (part-time NHS employees). However we
  need to investigate whether it applies equally to
  our full-time international students (Locally
  Validated)
• Undoubtedly it Improves our Understanding of
  issues relating to local versus centralised
  delivery of information skills training.
• The investigation of subsequent use is an
  interesting Choice of Methodology. However we
  would probably choose to investigate additional
  outcomes (e.g. skills acquisition). This will
  require identification of an alternative/additiona
  l Tool.

6
When considering Applicability think SCOPE

• Severity How urgent/important is the problem?
• Clients Does the planned intervention fit with
  the values, needs and preferences of my users?
• Opportunity Is now the time to apply this? Has
  the situation changed since the evidence was
  produced?
• Politics Is there local support for this
  intervention?
• Economics Can we afford this intervention? Will
  this be at the expense of something else?

7
We now apply the SCOPE approach to our question
8
Severity

• Numbers of Masters students are increasing
• It will become prohibitive on staff-time to
  attempt to train all in one-to-one sessions
• However not all will require one-to-one training
• We will need to continue to offer one-to-one
  training
• Therefore it is not necessarily a choice of one
  NOT the other.
• More a case of appropriateness

9
Clients

• Some students prefer personalised topic-specific
  attention of one-to-one training
• Others prefer anonymity of small group training
• We need more local information on cultural issues
• We have identified a gap in our knowledge prior
  to implementation
• Library staff find it more time-efficient to
  train small groups BUT generally believe
  one-to-one training to be more effective
  (anecdotal)

10
Opportunity

• The evidence is up-to-date and reflects current
  practice
• Now is a good time to pilot this because we have
  resources to run group clinics and one-to-one
  training in parallel
• However one potential alternative is e-learning
  which allows students to learn at own time and
  pace (perhaps with tutorial assistance)

11
Politics

• Staff on the Masters (MPH) course welcome the
  clinics initiative as a systematic provision for
  their students promoting equity
• Full extent of one-to-one training is almost
  invisible to the organisation at present
• Information officers also support research and
  consultancy may become more available if they
  can channel their one-to-one audience towards
  scheduled clinics

12
Economics

• Each clinic involves 2 information officers for
  up to 2 hours (Compare 1 information officer for
  1 hour for one-to-one sessions)
• If equally effective then need at least 4
  participants per clinic to break even (4 person
  hours) although students will be receiving more
  intensive input
• One-to-one training takes place in Library
  (taking up a library PC) whereas clinics use
  computer lab (currently free but may deny other
  students access during clinics)

13
Summary

• There is not sufficient evidence to favour one
  intervention over the other at present
• However need to know more about student
  preferences and (especially) relative
  effectiveness
• SUGGESTED ACTION Administer pre- and post-tests
  to students after clinics and one-to-one sessions
  and compare score increases. Survey students on
  preferences.

14
Resources

• View the Applicability Checklist from the
  Libraries Using Evidence Toolkit
  www.eblip.net.au/toolkit/docs/Applicability20Chec
  klist.pdf
• This covers User Group, Timeliness, Cost,
  Politics and Severity

15
References

• Ayre S (2006) Workplace-based information skills
  outreach training to primary care staff Health
  Information and Libraries Journal 23 (s1), 5054.
  
• Booth A (2004) What research studies do
  practitioners actually find useful? Health
  Information and Libraries Journal 21 (3),
  197200.
• Koufogiannakis D Crumley E (2004) Applying
  evidence to your everyday practice in Booth A
  Brice A (2004). Evidence-based Practice for
  Information Professionals a handbook. London,
  Facet. Chapter10 pp.119-126