Volume 21, Number 1, 2026

EN:

Objective – This paper proposes a novel framework for asking questions in evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) called OPEN (Objective, Purpose, Evidence, and Narrative). It responds to the question: How can a framework for asking EBLIP questions be developed and applied to open educational practices (OEP)?

Methods – Using a single-case study design, the framework was developed using an inductive approach throughout a three-year collaborative project to create a data dashboard. The project was documented, and these qualitative project artefacts were analyzed. The analysis was used to develop the framework and determine its value.

Results – Arising concurrently from the data dashboard project, the OPEN framework comprises four elements - Objective: What do we need to know?; Purpose: Why do we need to know this?; Evidence: What evidence do I have or need?; and Narrative: How will I communicate this evidence? These elements guide library and information professionals to define what they need to know, collect, and communicate to make evidence based decisions. The case study demonstrates how the framework can be applied to OEP.

Conclusion – Existing evidence based practice (EBP) frameworks developed for clinical environments are difficult to apply to the wide range of EBLIP initiatives, which are often more exploratory, or more immediate in their evidence needs. UniSQ Library's collaborative data dashboard project highlighted the need to develop a flexible framework that diverse stakeholders, including OEP practitioners, with differing levels of experience in evidence based practice, could apply. This research found that the collaborative and reflective nature of the project was instrumental in developing both a useful data dashboard to empower authors to tell their own data stories, and a new framework that contributes to the future of EBLIP and enhances the ability of OEP practitioners to meaningfully engage with EBP.

EN:

Objective – Student engagement is an integral part of the mission and function of academic libraries, with powerful potential to impact decision-making across various facets of governance, operations, services, and space design. Despite its importance, however, “student engagement” is a broad and highly contested term, even within the domain of libraries. While recent efforts have been made to categorize the concept of “student engagement” in this context and numerous case studies exist to highlight individual libraries’ efforts, successes, and challenges, there is a lack of existing studies involving a cohesive exploration across Canadian academic libraries. In response to this gap, this research details a national-level investigation of how academic libraries in Canada are approaching student engagement, with specific attention towards use of student voices as a feedback mechanism for decision-making.

Methods – Using a combination of a national virtual survey and semi-structured interviews/focus groups with library employees, this study explores specific engagement strategies and processes used by academic libraries, as well as the perceived challenges and benefits of this work.

Results – Sample findings indicate that, while library staff are generally enthusiastic about engagement and voice-seeking work, limited time, resources, and complex organizational cultures can limit activities and alienate students. Despite challenges, participants highlighted numerous benefits, including increased proximity and relevance to students, upholding of the key mission and goals of academic libraries, enhanced quality assessment and improvement of library operations through evidence based decision-making, and bolstered ability to pursue authentic equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility (EDIA) commitments. Feedback mechanisms, student employment, and teaching and learning interactions were the most reported strategies for engagement, though opportunities for other engagement domains remain.

Conclusion – Implications of these findings are discussed in the broader context of library and information science and student engagement literature, followed by recommendations for academic libraries to take action via the integration of user-centred library cultures and co-developed communities/partnerships on campus.

EN:

Objective – Seeing an absence of training opportunities for librarians supporting evidence synthesis outside of the health sciences, a collaborative team of librarians sought grant funding, developed a curriculum, and facilitated community building to provide this training.

Methods – The present case study describes the identification of a training gap, multi-faceted efforts made to fill that gap, and evaluation via pretests and post-tests to continuously improve the program.

Results – The Evidence Synthesis Institute (ESI) was launched in 2020. An application process is used to select the 50-person ESI cohort, with an average acceptance rate of 37%. To date, over 500 individuals have attended the Evidence Synthesis Institutes. Pre- and post-institute surveys show consistent gains in confidence to perform a variety of evidence synthesis skills. Additionally, we developed a self-paced online course which has over 750 enrolled learners with 118 having completed at least 90% of the course.

Conclusion – This case study provides a model for designing, implementing, and assessing a training program and community of practice for an emergent skillset in academic librarianship. As shown by the program’s acceptance rate, demand remains high for participation in evidence synthesis training. Future programming could build on past success, such as continuing to offer synchronous virtual Institutes, training additional instructors, and expanding the asynchronous online course to include more content and summative assessments.

EN:

Objective – Practicing physicians must engage in continuous learning throughout their careers, and in Canada this learning is guided by frameworks that include information retrieval and scholarship. Health sciences librarians (HSLs) are well equipped to support knowledge growth in this area through their demonstrated instruction capabilities. Yet the literature depicting librarian instruction of practicing physicians within the Canadian context is lacking, and an understanding of what characterizes their teaching to this learner group is needed.

Methods – Using descriptive study design, a bilingual, electronic survey was distributed across two professional listservs for HSLs in North America in May 2024. Once the survey closed, data were cleaned and tabulated using Microsoft Excel and responses to open-ended questions were reviewed.

Results – The survey engaged 21 respondents, and after data were cleaned, 15 were left for inclusion and analysis. Most worked in a hospital setting when teaching practicing physicians, and online synchronous delivery methods were most common, followed closely by in-person synchronous. A variety of topics were reportedly taught, and the use of formal objectives and feedback processes was common. In open-ended responses, participants suggested they may be interested in teaching practicing physicians about artificial intelligence.

Conclusion – This study’s sample size is too small to offer definitive conclusions. However, it provides insight into what and how HSLs in Canada are teaching practicing physicians, and suggests missing components in planning instruction for this learner group. HSLs can provide value to Canadian physician organizations looking to bolster their CPD offerings and should advocate for themselves within their provincial and national networks.

EN:

Objective – The Behaviours in Dementia Toolkit is an online library to support dementia-related mood and behaviour changes. It is intended to be used by two key caregiving audiences: 1) formal, professional care partners, and 2) informal care partners. The purpose of this study was to assess the content tone and usability of the website to meet the needs of its two user groups.

Methods – The multi-method design included electronic surveys and interviews. Content tone was assessed using word reaction and highlighter tests. Task-specific usability was assessed with the single-ease question (SEQ), time on task, and completion rate. The System Usability Scale (SUS) measured overall usability before and after design changes based on initial results.

Results – Content tone was friendly, trustworthy, desirable, and clear, but informal care partners found medical jargon confusing. Task-specific usability was generally acceptable. Time one SUS score for formal care partners was assessed at a letter grade A, but for informal care partners was a C. Content tone and usability testing drove critical changes to the library. Time two SUS scores subsequently equalized for the user groups to an A- for formal care partners and a B for informal care partners. Divergent requirements for formal and informal care partners were identified and addressed using pragmatic human-centred design methods.

Conclusion – Jargon, information overload, and search flow require careful attention in an online health information library. Digital libraries and other projects facilitating access to health information seeking groups may find these usability methods useful to consider at the outset of their project planning given the actionable insights they can provide. These techniques are suitable for projects with a limited budget and tight timeframe.

EN:

Objective – The aims of the open education (OE) movement can be supported by academic librarians, although most librarians have not had formal training on open educational resources (OER). The objective of this study is to design and validate a survey instrument to measure the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of academic librarians toward OER to be used in future research projects.

Methods – The Open Education - Librarian Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (OpenEd-LibKAP) scale was developed by experienced academic librarians and assessed for content validity by OER subject experts. A pilot study was conducted to assess internal consistency, and a second round of the survey was administered to an international group of current academic librarians. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the results.

Results – The final instrument includes 50 questions, with 22 items in the knowledge domain, 16 items in the attitude domain, and 12 items in the practices domain. The KAP factors positively correlate in an expected manner, with a range from .404 to .591. The individual domains have high markers of reliability, implying a degree of confidence in our findings and future uses of the tool.

Conclusion – The OpenEd-LibKAP Scale developed through this study can be used by library administrators, OER program administrators, librarian researchers, and OER researchers to more accurately measure and assess academic librarian OER competencies, beliefs, and behaviours related to OER.

EN:

Objective – In 2009, a typology by Grant and Booth introduced the concept of a systematized review in which authors (typically students) selectively employ various elements of the systematic review process. As academic librarians who help research teams to select and conduct a variety of evidence synthesis types, we have fielded inquiries from teams interested in conducting systematized reviews for publication. While the typology is widely referenced, we were aware of no formal methodological guide to a systematized review type.

The objective of this scoping review is to identify and describe the extent of published systematized reviews, and to 1) identify and collate, where available, sources used for the conceptualization and conduct of the systematized reviews, 2) determine if explanations provided were based on constraints, and 3) describe common methodological characteristics.

Methods – Articles titled as a systematized review that attempted the collocation and synthesis of literature and included an adequate description of their methodology were included. We searched on September 1, 2023, the following five sources: Google Scholar, Lens.org, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and MEDLINE. We performed screening and data extraction in duplicate. Data extraction elements included common methodological characteristics relating to various steps of the evidence synthesis process. Descriptive, aggregate statistics, and categorization of reasons for selecting the systematized review type were the primary analysis for this review.

Results – Our review found 171 systematized reviews that met inclusion criteria. These were published between 2013 and 2023, and the number has increased each year. Resources or constraints were mentioned in only 32 included reviews, and only 19 had a single author. The methodological attributes of published systematized reviews vary significantly. A small number (15) of reviews searched only one database or source, while the majority searched between 2 and 6 sources. The majority (134) provided no search details or a non-reproducible search strategy. Only 36 included reviews mentioned librarian involvement.

Conclusion – Librarians should stay abreast of emerging evidence synthesis practices and the context in which researchers operate. It is unclear why and how authors choose the systematized review type because most did not report a source for their conceptualization, nor justify their choice. The majority of published reviews did not connect their methodological departures to the kinds of resource constraints typically associated with student work. The expectation that the elements of the systematic review process that authors chose to incorporate should be conducted and reported according to standards was not widely met.

Librarians, as methodological guides, participants, or evaluators can play a key role in reinforcing the expectations of this review type and the standards that should be met when publishing a systematized review. Publishers and consumers of systematized reviews are advised to consider how each modification of standard systematic review methodology may introduce bias and affect the value of the evidence presented in published systematized reviews.