Abstract
Introduction: Librarians are continually advocating for the expertise they can bring to knowledge synthesis research projects. Professional associations like the Canadian Health Libraries Association (CHLA) aim to promote librarians and information professionals as partners in health research. This push for representation must happen at a policy level in order to enact change. To that purpose, we explored the degree to which the inclusion of librarians and information professionals is represented at the funding level by healthcare research organizations in Canada.
Methods: We used a list of health research funding agencies generated from Scopus searches and an independent search of Canadian health research institutions, governmental health authorities, professional associations, and research-oriented universities to identify research grants designed for knowledge synthesis research. We examined these grants to determine whether they include librarians or information professionals in their eligibility criteria.
Results: Of the 14 knowledge synthesis grants we identified, only one required a medical librarian as a member of the research team in the grant eligibility criteria.
Discussion: Most knowledge synthesis grants in Canada do not require, recommend, or mention librarians or information professionals as a member of the research or authorship team. Despite evidence that librarians provide vital expertise on searching and are proven to substantially improve the quality of knowledge synthesis research projects, Canadian health research organizations do not acknowledge the skills that librarians and information professionals can bring to research projects at the funding level.
Publisher
University of Alberta Libraries
Reference31 articles.
1. Catillon M. Medical knowledge synthesis: a brief overview. [Internet] [place unknown] Harvard Business School; 2017 Nov 8 [cited 2022 Dec 5]. Available from: https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/WhitePaper-Catillon10.2017_40a6683d-411b-4621-a121-8f5e93b13605.pdf.
2. Uttley L, Quintana DS., Montgomery P, Carroll C, Page M J, Falzon L, Sutton A, Moher D. The problems with systematic reviews: A living systematic review. J Clinical Epidemiology [Internet]. 2023 Feb 14 [cited 2023 Apr 10];156:30-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.011.
3. Fire M, Guestrin C. Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart’s Law in action. Gigascience [Internet]. 2019 Jun 1 [cited 2022 Dec 5];8(6). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz053.
4. Kolaski K, Logan RL, Goss KD, Butler C. Quality appraisal of systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy reveals critically low confidence. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology [Internet]. 2021 Jun 6 [cited 2023 Apr 10];63:1316-26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14949.
5. Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q [Internet]. 2016 Sep 13 [cited 2023 Apr 10];94(3):485-514. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210.