Hypothesis https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/hypothesis <p><em>Hypothesis</em> is the official journal of the&nbsp;Research Caucus of the Medical Library Association.&nbsp;The journal is open access and peer-reviewed with the purpose of providing the MLA Research Caucus and other MLA members with an outlet for research and research-related content. This includes research papers, project and program decriptions, and letters to the editor.</p> Research Caucus of the Medical Library Association en-US Hypothesis 1093-5665 <p>All works in <em>Hypothesis</em> are licensed under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license</a>. Authors own copyright of their articles appearing in <em>Hypothesis</em>. Readers may copy articles without permission of the copyright owner(s), as long as the author(s) and the Medical Library Association are acknowledged in the copy, and the copy is used for educational, not-for-profit purposes. For any other use of articles, please contact the copyright owner(s).&nbsp;</p> Challenges of the two-year manuscript: Engaging in reflective practice with a manuscript about reflective practice https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/hypothesis/article/view/23971 <p>Objective: The intent of the project was to publish the results of completed survey research in a timely manner. Methods: Progress on the development of the manuscript was irregular, made more complicated by a lack of focus. Results: The resulting manuscript was finally submitted over two years after the data was collection. Lessons learned: Intentional reflection earlier in the process would have identified the underlying issues and generated solutions sooner.</p> Jolene M Miller Copyright (c) 2020 Jolene Miller http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2021-02-25 2021-02-25 32 1 10.18060/23971 Expanding a single-institution survey to multiple institutions: Lessons learned in research design and deployment https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/hypothesis/article/view/23945 <p>Objective:&nbsp; Creating generalizable knowledge across institutions is a step beyond a successful local research project. The purpose of this article is to share the process and lessons learned from expanding a survey tool developed and piloted at a single veterinary college to its deployment at multiple veterinary colleges in the United States and Canada.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Population or problem: Little guidance exists on expanding a survey developed for a single institution to distribution to health professions students across multiple institutions.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Methods:&nbsp;&nbsp; In June 2016, the first author of the survey contacted librarians from veterinary colleges to explore a possible multi-institution study to investigate student behaviors and perceptions around scientific information. Librarians from twenty-nine institutions initially expressed interest. Those at fifteen institutions participated in initial planning, and eight elected to distribute the survey. Of these, seven submitted for IRB review at their own institution and one institution facilitated the distribution of the survey under the original institution’s IRB exemption.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Findings:&nbsp; The IRB submission process and requirements varied by participating institution. Mean time from submission to approval was 10 days (range: 2-31 days). Several changes were made to the survey based on the recommendations of participating librarians, ranging from simplifying the method of survey distribution to modifying specific questions to make them meaningful across institutions. As participating institutions did not have synchronized academic calendars, the survey distribution took a staggered approach between institutions based on IRB review and varying institutional processes.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Conclusions:&nbsp;&nbsp; Expanding even a simple IRB-exempt survey from one institution to others requires careful consideration of local practices, attention to differences in the IRB process, and ethical considerations for recruiting students where librarians serve as instructors or hold other positions of influence. Attempts to standardize recruitment messaging and survey questions for generalizable results required compromise by the librarian researchers at participating institutions.</p> Erin Eldermire Kristine Alpi Suzanne Fricke Andrea Kepsel Erin E Kerby Jessica R Page Hannah F Norton Copyright (c) 2020 Erin R. B. Eldermire, Kristine M. Alpi, Suzanne Fricke, Andrea C. Kepsel, Erin E. Kerby, Jessica R. Page, Hannah F Norton http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2021-02-25 2021-02-25 32 1 10.18060/23945 Factors affecting clinical referrals to the medical library https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/hypothesis/article/view/23908 <p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine why and when clinical care teams refer patients to the medical library.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 2018 survey of clinical care teams at a research hospital measured awareness of library services available to patients, facilitators and barriers to referral, and likelihood of future referral. Spearman correlations were used to determine the strength of relationships between familiarity with the services and how often respondents referred those services. Referral rate distributions were compared between job type groups.</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, self-reported referral rates were low. There was a marginally significant relationship between referral rate and job type (p=0.01), with providers having lower referral rates. There was a positive correlation between familiarity with library services and service referral frequency (r<sub>s</sub>=0.78 for combined data) and between current referral rates and likelihood of future referral (r<sub>s</sub>=0.43 for combined data, p&lt;0.0001 for both). Among respondents who had never referred patients, the top reasons were lack of awareness of library services and uncertainty about how to make referrals.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results suggest that lack of knowledge, rather than lack of interest and support, results in lower clinic referrals to the library. When providers are aware of the library they are referring patients, and those currently referring are likely to make future referrals. The qualitative responses show agreement, linking the lack of referrals to marketing and procedural insufficiencies (rather than distrust or dislike of the services), which indicates potential for increasing referrals by addressing these deficits. A streamlined patient referral system from clinic to library could be beneficial.</p> Liz Kellermeyer Matthew Strand Copyright (c) 2020 Liz Kellermeyer, Matthew Strand http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2021-02-25 2021-02-25 32 1 10.18060/23908 Sharing research data to comply with a journal policy: Experience of a first-time depositor https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/hypothesis/article/view/24038 <p><strong>Background</strong> Journals in health sciences increasingly require or recommend that authors deposit the data from their research in open repositories. The rationale for publicly available data is well understood, but many researchers lack the time, knowledge, and skills to do it well, if at all. There are few descriptions of the pragmatic process a researcher author undertakes to complete the open data deposit in the literature.</p> <p>When my manuscript for a mixed methods study was accepted by a journal that required shared data as condition of publication, I proceeded to comply despite uncertainty with the process.</p> <p><strong>Purpose </strong>The purpose of this work is to describe the experience of an information science researcher and first-time data depositor to complete an open data deposit. The narrative illustrates the questions encountered and choices made in the process.</p> <p><strong>Process Methods </strong>To begin the data deposit process, I found guidance from the accepting journal’s policy and rationale for its shared data requirement. A checklist of pragmatic steps from an open repository provided a framework used to outline and organize the process. Process steps included organizing data files, preparing documentation, determining rights and licensing, and determining sharing and permissions. Choices and decisions included which data versions to share, how much data to share, repository choice, and file naming. Processes and decisions varied between the quantitative and qualitative data prepared.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Results </strong> Two datasets and documentation for each were deposited in the Figshare open repository, thus meeting the journal policy requirements to deposit sufficient data and documentation to replicate the results reported in the journal article, and also meeting the deadline to include a Data Availability Statement with the published article.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion </strong>This experience illustrated some practical data sharing issues faced by a librarian author seeking to comply with a journal data sharing policy requirement for publication of an accepted manuscript. Both novice data depositors and data librarians may find this individual experience useful for their own work and the advice they give to others.</p> Marianne D Burke Copyright (c) 2020 Marianne Burke http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2021-02-25 2021-02-25 32 1 10.18060/24038 Introducing Methods Moment https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/hypothesis/article/view/24392 <p><em>Hypothesis</em> announces a new column, Methods Moment.</p> Nina Exner Copyright (c) 2020 Nina Exner http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2021-02-25 2021-02-25 32 1 10.18060/24392 Case studies https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/hypothesis/article/view/24048 <p>The inaugural column of Methods Moment focuses on the topic of case study methodology. Each Methods Moment column will present a brief, pratical overview of an issue in research methodology.</p> Nina Exner Copyright (c) 2020 Nina Exner http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2021-02-25 2021-02-25 32 1 10.18060/24048 2020 Research Caucus Research Awards https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/hypothesis/article/view/24413 <p>The MLA Research Caucus is pleased to announce the winners for best research papers and posters presented at the MLA 2020 Virtual Meeting. Thank you to all the judges who volunteered their expertise to help select these deserving awardees both in the pre-judging phase and at the Virtual Conference. To learn more about the awards and selection process, visit the Research Section website at <a href="http://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=938">http://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=938</a>.</p> Lindsay E Blake Copyright (c) 2020 Lindsay Ellis Blake http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2021-02-25 2021-02-25 32 1 10.18060/24413 Message of solidarity to Research Caucus members https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/hypothesis/article/view/24464 Alexander J Carroll Copyright (c) 2020 Alexander J Carroll http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2021-02-25 2021-02-25 32 1 10.18060/24464 Editorial https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/hypothesis/article/view/24580 Erin D Foster Margaret Hoogland Carol L Perryman Copyright (c) 2020 Erin D Foster, Margaret Hoogland, Carol L Perryman http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2021-02-25 2021-02-25 32 1 10.18060/24580