A current perspective on medical informatics and health sciences librarianship.

Denison Memorial Library, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 East Ninth Avenue, A003 Denver, Colorado 80262, USA.
Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA (Impact Factor: 0.99). 05/2005; 93(2):199-205.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: The article offers a current perspective on medical informatics and health sciences librarianship. NARRATIVE: The authors: (1) discuss how definitions of medical informatics have changed in relation to health sciences librarianship and the broader domain of information science; (2) compare the missions of health sciences librarianship and health sciences informatics, reviewing the characteristics of both disciplines; (3) propose a new definition of health sciences informatics; (4) consider the research agendas of both disciplines and the possibility that they have merged; and (5) conclude with some comments about actions and roles for health sciences librarians to flourish in the biomedical information environment of today and tomorrow. SUMMARY: Boundaries are disappearing between the sources and types of and uses for health information managed by informaticians and librarians. Definitions of the professional domains of each have been impacted by these changes in information. Evolving definitions reflect the increasingly overlapping research agendas of both disciplines. Professionals in these disciplines are increasingly functioning collaboratively as "boundary spanners," incorporating human factors that unite technology with health care delivery.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide library managers with the ability to recognize and address World 2.0 information issues to enhance their ability to develop management plans for the future. Design/methodology/approach – This paper explores what World 2.0 means to library managers in three ways. Three information dimensions are identified using models to examine World 2.0 in a historical context. An analysis is conducted of the different generations of users in World 2.0 including their diverse attitudes, beliefs, experiences and skills and how these influence their engagement with the information environment. Four key characteristics of Web 2.0 are identified through an analysis of Web 2.0 in relation to World 2.0. Findings – Key findings in this paper are that: three dimensions of information in World 2.0 exist and can be used by library managers to help them understand the challenges and to facilitate the construction of strategic management plans that address them. Generational and organizational perspectives of World 2.0 can influence how libraries engage Web 2.0, and should be considered when library managers make strategic management plans for the future. The four characteristics of Web 2.0 create considerations for library managers during their planning processes. Originality/value – This paper is of interest because it provides library managers with a thorough understanding of World 2.0 and how it may influence their libraries and their users so they can make more informed, more successful planning choices.
    Library Management 01/2009; 30(1/2):57-68. DOI:10.1108/01435120910927529
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The traditional role of health librarians as expert searchers is under challenge. The purpose of this review is to establish health librarians' views, practices and educational processes on expert searching. The search strategy was developed in LISTA and then customised for ten other databases: ALISA, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. The search terms were (expert search* OR expert retriev* OR mediated search* OR information retriev*) AND librar*. The searches, completed in December 2010 and repeated in May 2011, were limited to English language publications from 2000 to 2011 (unless seminal works). Expert searching remains a key role for health librarians, especially for those supporting systematic reviews or employed as clinical librarians answering clinical questions. Although clients tend to be satisfied with searches carried out for them, improvements are required to effectively position the profession. Evidence-based guidelines, adherence to transparent standards, review of entry-level education requirements and a commitment to accredited, rigorous, ongoing professional development will ensure best practice.
    Health Information & Libraries Journal 03/2012; 29(1):3-15. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00974.x · 0.89 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014