I agree (with the comments in the priorities for future development briefing) that the time and skills needed to implement an EBLIP study are big issues when thinking about the future of EBLIP. It would be helpful (from my point of view) to have standardised guidelines on to how to go about implementing EBLIP for various tasks i.e. questionnaires, user studies etc. This could help cut down on the time I would have to spend creating a programme for my workplace. I think that anything that can help cut down on the time needed to learn the new skills would be beneficial so as suggested, guidelines and a register of rigorous studies are both good ideas.

I wonder whether it's always possible to have the "luxury" to apply sound EBLIP. In my experience policies are expected to be drawn up quickly often prompted by an "incident" or complaint and decisions needed within very short time periods. How often is there an opportunity to search the literature, collect sufficient data, do surveys etc? It usuallly seems to be a case of people getting their heads together, asking people they think will have some insight and experience that will be useful and doing their best to address the issue. And this is before the politcal or economic circumstances have cut off certain options to begin with! So perhaps the priority is to try and create a culture where EBLIP is allowed to flourish rather than the fire fighting that seems all too apparent.

I agree with both James and Elizabeth and the priorities on the Folio document. Elizabeth's point about political and economic circumstances cutting off certain options rings very true to me. I also think that CILIP and the other numerous library professional and strategic organisations have done very little so far to promote EBLIP approaches within our profession. We seem to have leadership by committees eager to undertake reviews and bumble along producing rather ill-informed and ineffective strategies. If a few EBLIP approaches had been taken, the role and value of library services would have been clearer and stronger to our users and stakeholders. Our needs for continued funding would also have been measureable and based on sound evidence. Until EBLIP happens at this level, with James' standardised guidelines, I fear we are based on shifting sand with the tide coming in on us.

I agree with all FOLIO’s comments in the priorities for future development briefing and also with the views of James, Elizabeth and Jane. Finding the time to conduct an EBLIP study is very difficult. I have recently completed an evaluation of our journal subscriptions to find evidence for continuing current subscriptions and for possibly taking out new subscriptions. It was important to gather evidence in this way but the evaluation was very time-consuming and I had to conduct it alongside all my other duties. As James says, to have standardised guidelines for using EBLIP in various research methodologies would be very valuable. When I designed the questionnaire for the journal survey, colleagues were my main source of help and advice. To have known where to find some standardised guidelines for this would have been helpful and would have saved a lot of time.

As health librarians we encourage staff to use our services for their CPD and for practising evidence-based medicine; but I think we are much less aware of the need to use EBLIP approaches within our own jobs. If we were to do so then our credibility with our user groups could increase. I agree with Jane that professional organisations like CILIP should promote EBLIP more, e.g. by disseminating articles in the Gazette and Updates and in running training courses in this area. If library schools could inculcate evidence-based approaches amongst new recruits to the profession, then this would help to embed EBLIP within working practice in the longer term.

If EBLIP is to be used effectively then attempts would need to be made to integrate EBLIP into existing working practice. This would undoubtedly be a challenging transition. As noted by Elizabeth in an earlier posting, time is often short and policies are drawn up quickly without the level of groundwork EBLIP requires. By including EBLIP in job descriptions and staff development plans, noted by Andrew Booth in “Eleven Steps to EBLIP Service”, this may go some way in creating a more EBLIP friendly culture. Incorporating EBLIP at these sorts of stages would help to normalise the process, enabling EBLIP to be considered a central and accepted method of working rather than a time consuming add-on.

The point made by Rachel, that we encourage use of library services to support evidence based practice but that we were much less likely to incorporate EBLIP approach in our own jobs, was a very interesting one. Food for thought!

I agree with eblip"TIME" is indeed a great challenge when implementing an eblip study. To gather evidence for any evaluation is very time consuming while working in a busy information library and I agree with James, in that it would be very helpful to have standardised guidelines on how to implement eblip for various tasks, such as user studies.
I also feel that the need for librarians to research more in-depth/appropriate literature is ever growing; requiring higher searching skills, so further development of these would be a priority for me.

I would echo the thoughts already expressed in this discussion, for me time is the main challenge preventing me from fully implementing EBLIP in my work practice. As Elizabeth says, it really is a luxury to be able to spend time in a detailed search and subsequent analysis of the literature before making decisions on best practice. From my experience decisions are usually made in haste with perhaps a quick look for relevant case reports or consulting with colleagues. I think international journals, or more systematic reviews, bringing together relevant evidence on particular topics would be a big help in saving time. Also, as James and others have said, best practice guidelines would also be extremely helpful for carrying out tasks which are common to all of us. This would save a great deal of time and duplicated work. Of course when using these guidelines different working contexts would need to be taken into consideration - individuals would need to ensure that they were relevant to their particular situation and context before applying them. Critical appraisal checklists are also very useful (especially for people like me who are not particularly confident in this area!).

I also share the general points that all previous comments emphasize: the clear opportunities that an evidence-based approach to library research and practice offers us - both in terms of improving what we do and negotiating our role within host organisations - must not be outweighed by the challenges that it currently seems to pose to us.
Creating a 'culture of evidence' could be both slow and problematic (as the still patchy uptake amongst healthcare practitioners would appear to demonstrate), but ever-increasing practical pressures might compel us to adopt an ad hoc evidence-based approach to problem-solving.
Being able to draw from - and, in turn, contribute to - an easy-access systematically reviewed and updated repository of research (James' proposal) would certainly facilitate dissemination and evidence-informed practice. It could also help us to deal with difficult management issues. For instance, a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of print journals' use would have greatly helped me to manage a 'serious' emergency (the type of pressures that Elizabeth hints at) only last week. A board-level manager (our large orders' authorised approver) demanded a detailed cost-effective evaluation of print journals' usage prior to signing our renewal order - with a 6-hour deadline! His radical baseline assumption is that no print journals should be kept. As an influential EBM supporter, he could have found an evidence-based reply convincing in two ways: as an authoritative reply to his request; and, more broadly, as a proof that what we do and offer as information specialists is firmly nested in a research-based professional body of knowledge. As it turned out, I had to resort to less satisfactory arguments to fence off the challenge - and the promise that print journals' use will be monitored in the coming year. I will definitely find time to embed my forthcoming research into the existing knowledge.

Personally, my priorities for EBLIP will be developing and improving my critical appraisal skills, which I believe will become more in demand for information professionals working within health libraries. I would argue that the most important priority for embedding EBLIP within current practice is including within job descriptions (as ltrainer points out), to allow staff the time to undertake research but also give the expectation that it will be done.

As many have already pointed out, the development of guidelines for key areas of library practice would be extremely helpful for the future - I would also like to see a way for all information professionals to add knowledge to these, perhaps adding appraisals of articles or reports from evaluation studies to help inform others? I agree with Jane that guidelines would need to be tailored to individual situations, but with enough input from everyone, perhaps the most common situations could be covered?

Like Tasha, I feel it necessary to improve my critical appraisal skills. I have booked myself on a course next week, but previous experience suggests to me that its a case of 'use it or lose it'. Health service librarians used to have a journal club type thing here in Hampshire in which we discussed a paper, and then looked at a web-based resource, but that has fallen by the wayside. Time and geography were the main factors; maybe now is the time to consider whether ICT can help us overcome these problems? I'm going to make time next week to search for ideas of how to run a journal club without demanding that all participants are in the same room at the same. time. We need to create a culture of evidence, but we also need to support each other in the development of skills necessary to apply and exploit the evidence base.

I have to agree with the majority of comments already posted. All the priorities listed for future development are important but time and resources will be major barriers. My experience is similar to that of Elizabeth and due to the pressure of running a busy library service, quick-fix solutions win through.
Jane’s view is completely valid and CILIP and the other major organisations need to take a lead on creating standardised guidelines that we can all work from. Perhaps it is time to commission a dedicated team to develop these guidelines?
Another concern for me is that all good research should be freely and easily accessible. Not all libraries can afford subscriptions to relevant journals and so could be missing out.
Taking all of that in consideration though, I do believe that by sharing good practice and publishing our own quality research, we can develop EBLIP to the benefit of our services.

As for James and many others I think practice guidelines have the potential to be very helpful in our resource-constrained environments (especially time!). It is very important that they are easily accessible and that we develop more familiarity with ones of particular relevance for our work. Little time and low priority for research activity, within job descriptions and actual day-to-day roles is certainly a barrier to EBL as many comments evidence. When we have basic tools (Booth and Brice, p. 97, Prediction is difficult, Especially the future: A progress report) and good summaries of existing knowledge, we would be in a better position to lobby for resources for research. Collaborative work and sharing of research ideas/efforts would seem to be a requirement for greater prominence of EBLIP.

Like Jo and Tasha, I would like to develop my critical appraisal skills. I can say that the emphasis on research, that this course has promoted, has renewed my enthusiasm for following lines of research, and for gaining an appreciation of the broader background of research paradigms and methodologies. Maintaining this interest is a priority for me, and how this can be included in my PDP requires consideration. Having the freely available EBLIP journal as a 'must read' would be a good start.

I agree with the points made by various people about time and resource constraints, and EBLIP somehow being perceived as something extra/additonal or luxurious! Yet, healthcare is supposed to be evidence-based; we are working in a sector that supposedly looks to the "best available evidence" for its decision-making. Somehow, we seem to be slightly outside of that loop. I wonder if it's because EBLIP is negatively perceived as not "getting the job done" - the "job" being to serve the needs of our customers (i.e. just be reactive to their requests- scuttle off and get the books they ask for!) rather than an important part of the team who can make an important contribution- information is taken for granted and as a profession we do suffer from negative perceptions. So I think the problem is wider than just EBLIP-specific problems; broader problems within the profession need to be addressed. (Rant over)

I think my personal priority, again agreeing with a lot of points already made, is around ciritcal appraisal - I have received some training on this but as Jo says it is a case of "use it or lose it"! It's surprising how quickly your confidence can drop if you don't do any for a while.

I think more broadly across the profession, my priority would be to embed EBLIP more in "everyday" work - whether that be by including it in the curriculum or job descriptions, anything to make it seem more valuable and a core skill . Developing (or rediscovering) research skills would hopefully follow quite naturally from this. A growing awareness and interest in EBLIP would also be supported by an international journal or some way of sharing best practice, and capturing and recording best available evidence. In other words, practicing what we preach!

Spurred by the same learning needs awareness expressed in many contributions to the current debate, my manager and I recently completed a rather demanding critical appraisal skills course (a mixed online-classroom package, as advertised in the BMJ). The 'master plan' is to stress our research interpreter/facilitator/time-saving expert mediator's role when advertising our services, as well as setting up in-house CAS courses for our users. The subject matter – statistical analyses in particular – is quite challenging, and critical learning soon fades if not practiced, as Jo and Emily point out. Yet, it would be difficult to argue that research evaluation skills are not a priority, both to strengthen our professional texture and engage with our users at a more specialist level.
We were extremely surprised to find out that there were only two information professionals amongst the 20 attendants (16 doctors; 1 psychologist; 1 healthcare manager; us two)… as we had anticipated that more colleagues – as confirmed by many previous comments - would seek to develop sound critical appraisal skills.

I too agree with others about the time factor which restricts us applying evidence based practice in our day to day work. This applies to any profession and as Rachel mentions If EBP is applied in other professions for research and development, Librarians too should be able to apply the same method when we need to develop more effective strategies for change. If we can promptly identify key factors that relates to our research topics from the evidence we collect, we will be able to see beyond our limited perceptual framework and take good decisions. EBLIP is good for decision making as we can learn from each others' experience and avoid making mistakes. I too would like to develop my critical appraisal skills and think it is good to implement journal club sessions to teach literature evaluation in library science courses to develop critical appraisal skills perhaps at masters level.

For me, the main priority for the future of EBLIP, is a change of mindset amongst librarians, and I agree with the points made by ltrainer and Emily. If EBLIP is recognised as a key approach that must be followed, then other barriers (e.g. time) will dwindle – if you have to do something then you will make time for it, yet for this to happen, EBLIP must be fully supported and an EBLIP culture developed. As well as including it in job descriptions (see Tasha’s comments) it needs to be taught in library schools so that it is seen as a key skill akin to that of cataloguing.

I agree with Teresa (and others) who feel that at the moment, fully implementing EBLIP into our busy library duties seems an unrealistic luxury. In my library, when thinking about implementing changes we may scan a few articles to see what others have done, but the extent of our research and appraisal generally stops there – largely for the political and economic reasons highlighted by Elizabeth. I also think the point made by Jayne should not be overlooked. To conduct EBLIP thoroughly we need access to high quality journals. Although we have the open access EBLIP journal, relying on just one journal is not good research practice! Not all healthcare libraries will have access to relevant databases and journals, particularly if they are not affiliated to an academic institution – I believe this is an even bigger barrier than time. Perhaps this could be overcome by more access to library journals through CILIP membership?

For EBLIP to be successful we need to be confident in our use of it. The more we practice it, the better our searching and appraising skills will become and ultimately the less time it will take to conduct EBLIP. Yet it seems unlikely that this will happen if we only use EBLIP when making decisions about really important/large changes. My own personal priorities will be to start using EBLIP principles (e.g. critical appraisal) in my day to day decisions.

While I agree with many of the postings above that express concern about the time needed to practice EBLIP, I think it is important to "make time" for it. Also, as noted in Andrew Booth's paper on 11 steps to EBLIP if we integrate it into all elements of daily practice it would not actually increase the time committment.

I also think that many people within the profession already practice at least elements of EBLIP although they may not necessarily label it as such and be aware of the key steps in the process.

I think the priority suggested in the briefing about incorporating EBLIP within the curriculum of LIS courses would be an important action for the future. To embed EBLIP within academia should result in a new generation of evidence based practitioners that would automatically apply EBLIP to their professional practice. An increased focus on improving research within the profession would also support this goal and make knowledge more available to the profession even amongst those that do not actively practice EBLIP.

Perhaps there is also so interesting work to be done around a taxonomy or classification structure for LIS databases that would make research easier to find by standardising indexing terms as MeSH has done for much of the medical literature?

Whilst I agree that it's important to make time for EBLIP my comments stem more from the fact that we are often expected to make decisions in such a short space of time that it's often impossible to gather sufficient evidence and apply sound practice. Clearly we should try and plan and incorporate as much as possible into our regular tasks so that we are ahead of the game. I can think of several senior managers I've come across though who would not be impressed by a timescale allowing for the necessary time to find literature, do surveys, questionnaires, consultations etc. Often the drive to "move forward" , "get things done" and appear authoratative seems more important than applying sound evidence. Let's not forget about the current situation with polictical agendas and Professor Nutt too!

My main priority, like Tasha and Jo, is to gain confidence in my critical appraisal skills; I also would find it useful to appraise articles with colleagues to help build my confidence.

I agree with Jenny’s comments that we must find time for EBLIP activity to help inform the decisions we make; although I can see that in some situations, like the ‘serious’ emergency described by Marco, that unrealistic deadlines might be set inhibiting the process. I plan to embed the EBLIP process when reviewing services and resources; I hope that it will help us as we look at how we can work ‘smarter’ in these financially challenged times.

Paula - I spent Friday in Salisbury on a course facilitated by Alain Besson. It really made me think that I already possess some cirtical appraisal skills, and that I just need to utilise them more. As you say, appraising articles with others helps to build confidence, but our local group fizzled out... What do you think about an e-group, negating problems of geography and time? Or do you think that we really need that face to face contact with body language and the chance to bounce ideas off each other in real time?

Real time is the problem for me, and I think it seems to be a common one, from a review of the postings above. Andrew Booth said in the article we read for day 18 that the process shouldn't slow down the utilization of effective practice; however, if we have trouble finding time to search for and appraise the evidence for our own practice (because we are helping others find and appraise evidence for EBM!) then projects will be held up. There will be differences in how we want to implement change, or in services that we review, but there will also be some basic foundations; would it be helpful to have some kind of forum in which work already done can be shared? .

For me, time is a significant barrier to the implementation of evidence-based practice, and overcoming this needs to be a priority for the future. I certainly agree with Elizabeth Barrett that evidence-based practice can seem to be a ‘luxury’ when faced with the day-to-day demands of the service. Although I do appreciate Jenny Harbour’s point that we need to try and ‘make time’ for evidence-based practice (and we probably can do this more effectively), it is still a major challenge, often due to the way in which certain organisations operate. Elizabeth’s comment about senior managers who would not be impressed about a timescale allowing for literature searches, surveys etc. certainly rings true for me.

In practical terms we need to look at how evidence-based practice can be made more time-efficient. Developing systematic reviews could have a key role, providing high quality syntheses of evidence, without the need to spend hours reading many individual papers. In common with participants such as Marco Isetta I would support the development of a research repository to assist in finding relevant literature – something like an LIS version of the Cochrane Library. However, I also feel there is a need for more good quality primary research. Relevant evidence is patchy in certain areas and sample sizes are often small or don’t include a placebo or comparison. More RCT-style research needs to be encouraged. Additionally, Booth and Brice (2007) highlight Eldredge’s call for structured abstracts as the convention for reporting research. These could be a great time-saver.

CONTINUED FROM COMMENT ABOVE:

Embedding evidence-based practice as central to librarianship and promoting it to managers and stakeholders is also essential, and may be key to developing more time to practice it. I very much agree with Rachel Steele that if we adopt an evidence-based approach to our work, then our credibility with our users may increase. It would be important to publicise our evidence-based approach to senior managers and other stakeholders and make them aware of the benefits it provides to the service. I also support Jane Smethurst’s point that CILIP needs to take a leading role in embedding evidence-based practice at the core of the profession. We should aim for it to be central to what we do, rather than an ‘optional extra’, or something we do for our CPD.

Finally, I also fully support Jayne Hickton’s point about access to literature. We are in the position of not having the budget for LIS-related journals, and I’m sure others are too, so the availability of open access journals such as Evidence Based Library and Information Practice is vital. The growth of similar free titles in this area needs to be fostered.

I agree with Elizabeth Barrett's point that we need to foster a culture of EBLIP in our workplaces if EBLIP is to take root. I would certainly see it as a priority to make use of evidence-based practice in my managerial decision making.As Marco Isetta has pointed out, it very much improves our credibility if we can justify decisions we make on print journals for example wth reference to EBLIP principles. Jenny Harbour has pointed out that we often work in ways that have a basis in EBLIP but we may not label our practice this way. I think this is very much the case. As a number of contributors have mentioned, we need to be more explicit about EBLIP so that we can justify and if necessary defend our work practices. I agree with the point that CILIP has a role to play but I also think that the Health Libraries Group should have a key role too.

From reading the comment by Elizabeth Barrett about allocating extra time to EBLIP, I wondered if developing research models based on EBLIP could be edited for use in different contexts and if there was a short timescale, could there be a way of summarising the approach and research model? I am not sure if this is possible but maybe this way, EBLIP could be seen as something more easily incorporated into an individual’s workload rather than the large scale research projects that take considerable amounts of time in addition to daily tasks. Maybe a lot of daily tasks in libraries are already developing an evidence base and evidence could be drawn from this too.
I was also interested in Jenny Harbour’s comment about incorporating EBLIP into the LIS course curriculum. This way, EBLIP would be considered a high priority at all stages of a library career and also encourage enthusiasm for EBLIP at a stage when research methodology and investigation is fresh in your mind. It would also encourage enthusiasm for developing a future career in librarianship at a stage when research projects and investigation are still considered an exciting prospect rather than extra workload.