Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report
- PMID: 34858096
- PMCID: PMC8608185
- DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1222
Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report
Abstract
Background: Every step in the systematic review process has challenges, ranging from resistance by review teams to adherence to standard methodology to low-energy commitment to full participation. These challenges can derail the project and result in significant delays, duplication of work, and failure to complete the review. Communication during the systematic review process is key to ensuring it runs smoothly and is identified as a core competency for librarians involved in systematic reviews.
Case presentation: This case report presents effective communication approaches that our librarians employ to address challenges encountered while working with systematic review teams. The communication strategies we describe engage teams through information, questions, and action items and lead to productive collaborations with publishable systematic reviews.
Conclusions: Effective communication with review teams keeps systematic review projects moving forward. The techniques covered in this case study strive to minimize misunderstandings, educate collaborators, and, in our experience, have led to multiple successful collaborations and publications. Librarians working in the systematic review space will recognize these challenges and can adapt these techniques to their own environments.
Keywords: communication; expectations; process management; project management; systematic review; team management.
Copyright © 2021 Linda C. O'Dwyer, Q. Eileen Wafford.
Similar articles
-
Adopting a toolkit to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process: a case report.J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Oct 1;109(4):637-642. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1221. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021. PMID: 34858095 Free PMC article.
-
A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews.J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jul;105(3):268-275. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2017.189. Epub 2017 Jul 1. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017. PMID: 28670216 Free PMC article.
-
The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian.Med Ref Serv Q. 2011;30(3):301-15. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2011.590425. Med Ref Serv Q. 2011. PMID: 21800987
-
Solving challenges in inter- and trans-disciplinary working teams: Lessons from the surgical technology field.Artif Intell Med. 2015 Mar;63(3):209-19. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2015.02.001. Epub 2015 Feb 17. Artif Intell Med. 2015. PMID: 25726137 Review.
-
[Information specialists improve the quality of systematic reviews].Ugeskr Laeger. 2018 Jul 9;180(28):V10170721. Ugeskr Laeger. 2018. PMID: 29984706 Review. Danish.
Cited by
-
Adopting a toolkit to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process: a case report.J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Oct 1;109(4):637-642. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1221. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021. PMID: 34858095 Free PMC article.
-
Large-scale systematic review support for guideline development in diabetes precision medicine.J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Jul 1;112(3):275-280. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1863. Epub 2024 Jul 29. J Med Libr Assoc. 2024. PMID: 39308915 Free PMC article.
-
Bibliometric analysis of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at the University of Alberta.J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2024 Apr 1;45(1):16-29. doi: 10.29173/jchla29696. eCollection 2024 Apr. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2024. PMID: 38737777 Free PMC article.
-
TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence.Ocul Surf. 2023 Apr;28:200-212. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2023.04.009. Epub 2023 Apr 11. Ocul Surf. 2023. PMID: 37054912 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Wafford QE, O'Dwyer L. Systematic Review Toolkit [Outlines]. DigitalHub. Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center. 2021. [updated 14 Jan 2021]. DOI: 10.18131/g3-fx9k-hs23. - DOI
-
- Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1635–40. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources