




































Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

An Examination of Health Information Professionals’ Discourse
Surrounding Knowledge Synthesis: A Content Analysis

Christine J. Neilson, MLISa

aHealth Sciences Librarian, Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library, University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB Canada, https://www.orcid.org/0000-0002-0525-737X ,
mailto:Christine.Neilson@umanitoba.ca

Cite as: Neilson CJ. An Examination of Health Information Professionals’ Discourse
Surrounding Knowledge Synthesis: A Content Analysis. Hypothesis. 2025;37(2).
doi:10.18060/28782

Neilson. All works in Hypothesis are licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0
DEED Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International. Authors own copyright of their articles
appearing in Hypothesis. Readers may copy articles without permission of the copyright
owner(s), as long as the author(s) 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).

1

https://www.orcid.org/0000-0002-0525-737X
https://orcid.org/
mailto:mailto:Christine.Neilson@umanitoba.ca
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

Abstract
Introduction: Knowledge Synthesis (KS) is an umbrella term that encompasses a family of
research methods that aim to draw insights from existing bodies of research literature through
established processes of review and analysis. Providing support services for KS is part of
many health libraries’ day-to-day business and has been for several years.

Methods: This article presents the results of a content analysis conducted to gain insight into
our collective relationship with KS using journal articles and conference abstracts associated
with the Canadian Health Libraries Association and the Medical Library Association. The
study is framed in terms of three broad questions: What do health information professionals
talk about when they discuss knowledge synthesis? How do they talk about it? And who is
doing the talking? Descriptive codes and attribute codes were applied to the texts. Descriptive
codes were grouped and regrouped to create sub-themes and overall themes in a bottom-up
fashion.

Results: Three broad themes are evident in the texts: the Case for KS Work, Everyday
Realities of KS, and Pushing Back. KS discourse in the venues examined is currently
dominated by the voices of health information professionals working in academic libraries,
though this was not always the case.

Commentary: I suggest that our collective relationship with KS work has been changing, and
health information professionals are starting to become more comfortable with setting
boundaries around KS work.I also suggest that an apparent shift in voice towards academic
health information professionals and a general increase in the KS content included in these
venues over time could be attributed to 1) the widespread adoption of evidence-based practice
among our clientele, and 2) increased emphasis on research impact assessment.

Introduction
This article reports on an examination of texts (journal articles and conference abstracts) from
the Canadian Health Libraries Association (CHLA) and the Medical Library Association
(MLA) to explore the discourse surrounding knowledge synthesis among health information
professionals. For the purposes of this study, “health information professionals” (HIPs)
include various professional titles and roles such as librarians, information specialists,
informationists, and library technicians. “Knowledge synthesis” (KS) is an umbrella term that
encompasses a family of research methods that aim to draw insights from existing bodies of
research literature through established processes of review and analysis. It is also sometimes
referred to as research synthesis or evidence synthesis. Among HIPs, the best known
examples of KS are arguably narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and scoping reviews, but
the list of review types is extensive and keeps growing as new review types are proposed,
developed, and catalogued1. Interest in KS and related library services for science and
humanities disciplines has increased among information professionals relatively recently2-5,
but HIPs have been aware of KS in the health disciplines for decades and many HIPs’ daily
work is impacted by KS to some degree.

Many studies have examined library conference programs and journals to provide an
overarching interpretation of their content. According to Myers, “Knowing what librarians

2



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

talk about [. . . ] is important because what we talk about is what we are doing, and what we
are doing is creating the future work environments, services, and relationships that will shape
and define libraries”6. But these studies can also highlight the characteristics of authors, the
research methods they employed, the breadth of topics addressed through specific venues, the
treatment of a particular topic in specific venues, or themes that provide insight into the
experience of a particular population7-12. Such studies help us to take a big-picture view of
our profession and what is happening within it. Once we take a step back, we are prompted to
consider the assumptions and beliefs that make up our mental models of day-to-day practice
and our profession, and how those models compare to the picture that is presented.

The objective of this study was to gain insight into our collective relationship with KS by
asking:

1. What do health information professionals talk about when they discuss knowledge
synthesis?

2. How do they talk about it? and

3. Who is doing the talking?

This is a text-based study that examines publicly available journal articles and grey literature;
as such, institutional research ethics board approval was not required.

Researcher Position and Background

I am a Canadian health librarian who, at the time of writing this manuscript, has been a
practicing librarian for approximately 20 years and involved in KS work for approximately
half that time. I identify most with a pragmatic/constructivist research paradigm13,14. Even
though I currently work in an academic library context, I have previously worked in a hospital
library and special health library environments. As part of the broad health library
community, and the KS community specifically, I came to this project with an insider
perspective, and I have made an effort to be conscious of my own biases throughout this
study.

Methods
This study was guided by the methods for thematic coding and analysis described by
Saldaña15 and Braun and Clark16. Thematic analysis is an iterative process of theming the
literature through a bottom-up manner of identification and refinement. It involves becoming
familiar with the dataset; coding and recoding individual texts; identifying potential themes;
and reviewing, revising, and naming the identified themes and sub themes. The constructivist
paradigm is compatible with thematic analysis16,17 because theming goes beyond merely
labeling data, as researchers “reframe, reinterpret, and/or connect elements of the data” to
construct meaning17. While a lengthy process, this method offers both structure and flexibility
for exploring and interpreting the collected texts. As a truly exploratory study, no theoretical
framework was used to steer the analysis in a particular way.

Study procedures were tested using articles gathered through handsearching Journal of the
Canadian Health Libraries Association and coding the collected texts in NVIVO 14
software18. Emic coding–where the initial generation of descriptive codes is based on the

3



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

content of the texts rather than a predefined set of codes based on what the researcher expects
to find15–was used for the test. Procedures were modified as needed, and the test sample was
later re-coded as part of the larger dataset using the methods described below. Individual
pieces of text were assigned multiple codes when appropriate. The unit of analysis in this
study is the whole text; the frequency of a code within individual texts is not considered
because of the substantial difference in word counts between conference abstracts and full
articles.

Becoming familiar with the data through screening

Individual texts (i.e. articles and conference abstracts) were identified through handsearching
i) tables of contents for the Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association (JCHLA)
and the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA), and ii) conference programs/lists
of abstracts for CHLA and MLA annual conferences that are posted on the respective
association websites. Handsearching started with material from 2023 and moved on to earlier
years, stopping when either 2 full years of texts were published in that venue that did not meet
inclusion criteria, or when all of the material available on the source websites was examined.
CHLA is a national organisation that accepts conference submissions and journal articles in
either English or French; conference abstracts available only in French were translated using
the free Deepl online translator19. Titles and abstracts were read in their entirety; for
potentially relevant articles, the full text of the article was read as well. Eligibility for
inclusion in analysis was based on the following criteria:

Inclusion:

• The text is explicitly framed in terms of KS. This includes texts that discuss multiple
topics, such as KS services in addition to other research support services. It also
includes texts that mention how the topic the authors focus on relates to KS. For
example, articles reporting on the development of a search filter that mention the
potential usefulness of the filter for KS work would be included, while articles that
report on the development of a search filter without mentioning KS would be excluded.

• Where author supplied keywords were available for conference texts, the appearance of
relevant keywords made them eligible.

• Where specific research products were discussed, review types listed in Sutton et al.’s
2019 article “Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated
information retrieval requirements20” were considered to be KS.

Exclusion:

• Texts that are not framed in terms of KS.

• Texts that report on a KS project, rather than discuss KS as a topic.

• Texts that discuss how or where to locate published KS articles (for example, search
filters for identifying systematic reviews).

• Conference texts without an abstract (i.e.: only a title and list of authors is supplied).

• Conference keynotes.

4



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

• Journal texts that fall into the following categories: book reviews, product reviews,
messages from the journal editor, journal announcements, notices in memoriam.

• CHLA conference abstracts that were published in JCHLA.

– The conference programs posted on the CHLA website21 were considered the
authoritative source for CHLA conference material. However published abstracts
from the CHLA 2022 conference were used to supplement incomplete program
information that year, after eligible texts were identified in the program.

The dataset does not include CHLA conference abstracts from 2020 or 2021. Sufficient
program information was not available for 2021, and the 2020 CHLA conference was
cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.

Initial coding

Texts were reread and assigned two types of codes using NVIVO 14 software: descriptive
codes that describe the texts’ content15, and attribute codes that capture texts’ characteristics.
A provisional descriptive code book with codes addressing the first research question “What
do health information professionals talk about when they discuss knowledge synthesis?” was
developed when testing study procedures, as described above; this codebook was used and
adapted as needed to code the complete data set. Provisional codes were grouped and
regrouped, folding related codes into broader codes. For example, the codes bibliographic
databases, software tools, search filters, and other tools were collapsed into the single code
tools. Coding was reviewed before moving on to the theming stage. The complete list of
finalized codes for the first research question, their definitions, the number of texts where the
codes were applied, and examples of passages where the codes were applied is available as a
supplemental file (see data availability statement). A separate set of emic codes and
annotations were used in NVIVO to note the occurrence of terms and observations relating to
the second research question “How do they talk about it?” A list of the emic codes used is
also available.

Attribute coding was used to gather information about the characteristics of the individual
texts, as detailed in Table 1. The two codes that address the research question “Who is doing
the talking?” were Author workplace affiliations present and Geographic areas represented by
author affiliations. Data collection for authors’ listed affiliations was based on the presence or
absence of a given category rather than counts of affiliations for all authors of a work. More
than one category was applied when the list of authors represented multiple affiliation types.

When the type of organisation listed was unclear from the text, I consulted the organisation’s
website to determine the affiliation category. Libraries serving organisations that primarily
provide patient care were classified as hospital libraries. Libraries that serve organisations that
primarily provide health education were classified as academic libraries. Affiliations to
individual university departments, specific research units, or other traditional special library
environments were classified as special libraries. Where job titles and affiliations listed in a
text did not indicate the educational background of an individual – for example, “research
associate” or “director” – the author was assumed to be a HIP because HIPs are the primary
community associated with the communication venues examined. When the listed author
titles or credentials indicated such status as students who are not also library staff, library

5



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

school faculty, non-library faculty (ex: nursing faculty), clinician, or software engineer, the
author was designated a “non-library worker”.

Geographic areas represented by author affiliations were broken into three categories: Canada,
United States, and Another Country. There are no geographic restrictions on who may
participate in the venues examined here, but since CHLA and MLA are national associations,
Canada and the United States were considered separately from other countries.

Table 1. Attribute coding categories and associated codes

Category Codes Data Entry
Mechanism

Text source
CHLA Conference, MLA Conference, CHLA-MLA
joint conference, JCHLA or JMLA

Dropdown
selection

Year Year of publication or year the conference was held Free text

Type of text
Research, Program/Case Description, Commentary,
Other

Dropdown
selection

Text format
Article, Oral Presentation, Poster Presentation,
Lighting Talk

Dropdown
selection

Number of authors Number of authors listed Free text

Author workplace
affiliations present

Hospital library, Academic library, Special Library,
Public OR School Library, Non-library worker author,
Affiliation not included for 1 or more authors

Dropdown
selection

Geographic areas
represented by
author affiliations

Canada, United States (USA), Another Country
Dropdown
selection

Theming the Data

Codes, much like subject headings, are tags that note the presence of specific topics or ideas.
Themes represent broader constructs. The process of theming is a sense-making exercise that
involves sorting and resorting the final set of codes to explore the relationships between them.
These relationships were interpreted and integrated into a set of broad themes that relate to the
research question, “What do health information professionals talk about when they discuss
knowledge synthesis?” Quantitative data collected through attribute coding and tallying codes
and annotations related to research question two, “How do they talk about it?”, as mentioned
above, inform the overall themes as appropriate.

Limitations

The reader should consider three study limitations when reading the findings that follow.

Ambiguity in authors’ writing

Some conference abstracts in the study would have been excluded if not for the
inclusion of relevant author-supplied keywords (usually “systematic reviews”).
These keywords indicate that the authors’ own understanding of their work

6



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

frames it in terms of KS, despite not making that connection for the reader in
their title or abstract. In years where conference abstracts were not accompanied
by keywords, abstracts that fall into this category may have been excluded from
this study. Likewise, the terminology that authors use can be unpredictable and
different authors used the same terms in different ways. An example is the term
literature review; many authors seemed to use the term to refer to narrative
reviews, some authors clearly used it to refer to systematic reviews22, and others
indicated that they were using it as an umbrella term for all KS reviews23. The
terminology HIPs use has also changed over time. This is beautifully illustrated
by two conference abstracts that appear to describe the same service. Fang’s 2006
abstract refers to “evidence based reports” that are produced using a process that
sounds like KS procedures24. Later in 2013 Fang and colleagues did not detail the
process used, but name the end product as “systematic reviews” instead of
evidence based reports25. During handsearching, some relevant texts may have
been excluded because the language used by individual authors did not obviously
suggest that they were referring to KS, but since this project is not a systematic
review, capturing all texts relating to KS is not essential.

Incomplete information in conference abstracts

The level of detail provided in conference abstracts varied from abstract to
abstract, year to year, and conference to conference. Some information shared
verbally during a presentation may not have been included in the associated
abstract because of word count restrictions. Similarly, there were 27 conference
texts included in the study that described partial study results in the abstract, and
76 that provided no results at all. Some authors indicated that results were not
available at the time the abstract was submitted, some indicated that results would
be discussed during the presentation, and in some cases results were omitted
without explanation. As a result, coding may not have completely captured
presentation content. In terms of author information, some texts did not list
affiliations for all of the authors of a given abstract. The ways that author
affiliations are presented in the texts could also have had an impact on attribute
coding, since some authors may have multiple affiliations to choose from and the
level of affiliation reported (for example affiliation with a specific university
library vs. the university itself) could have varied between authors.

Quality of translation

The quality of automated translation for French material is not as good as
professional translation, but as an unfunded study it was not feasible to obtain
professional translation for the French texts that were screened. There were some
structural issues with translated texts but the message came across well enough
for the purposes of this project, and working with an imperfect text was
preferable to discounting French items simply because of language.

7



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

Findings
Sample Characteristics

A total of 537 texts were included in the analysis. 274 (51%) were classified as “research”,
203 (38%) were classified as “program descriptions”, 21 (4%) were “commentary”, and 39
(7%) were classified as “other”. Most of the included texts (n=284, 53%) came from the
MLA annual conference. When comparing the American and Canadian venues, both the
MLA conference and JMLA were the source of more texts about KS than their CHLA
counterparts, but the CHLA venues had more KS texts as a percentage of the overall number
of texts in the individual conferences/journal issues than the MLA venues (see Figure 1 for
the distribution of texts over time).

Figure 1. Sources of sample texts over time. Note that CHLA and MLA held a joint
conference in 2016. The 2021 CHLA conference was excluded because of insufficient
information in the posted program. The 2020 CHLA conference was cancelled due to the
COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.

A mix of author affiliation types–hospital library, special library, academic library, and
non-library workers–were present throughout the time period examined, but Figure 2 suggests
that around 2013, or shortly after, the voice of academic librarians became most prominent in
discussions of KS.

8



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

Figure 2. Counts of author affiliation types present in the sample by year.

The Venn diagrams in Figures 3 and 4 show that in some cases authors from different
affiliation types or countries worked together to produce texts, but for the most part authors
from different affiliation types or different countries did not mix. The number of texts that
only listed authors with academic library affiliations was more than double the number of
texts where authors with academic library affiliations worked with other affiliations (242
compared to a combined 104 texts). In contrast, 50 texts only listed authors with a hospital
library affiliation compared to 56 texts where authors with a hospital library affiliation worked
with individuals with another affiliation, and 79 texts only listed authors with special library
affiliations compared to 69 texts where authors with a special library affiliation worked with
individuals with another type of affiliation.

9



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

Figure 3. Author geographic affiliation types present in sample texts. An additional five texts
did not include geographic information for any authors (not represented here).

Two notable language-related features of the texts emerged during analysis: the terms used for
KS (either generally or relating to specific forms of KS) and the use of language that implies a
power relationship when discussing HIPs’ KS work.

10



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

Figure 4. Author affiliation types present in the sample. Note: Due to the small number of
texts with authors with school and public library affiliations, these texts have been folded into
the categories based on the other author affiliation types present. These categories have been
marked with an asterix (*). An additional six texts did not include affiliations for any authors
(not represented here).

There were 102 terms used to refer to KS within the sample. 460 texts (86%) used the specific
term “systematic review” (SR), and 17 texts (3%) used other terms that incorporated the word
“systematic”, such as “systematic literature review”, “systematic overview”, “systematic
scoping review”, and “systematic-like reviews”. Ten texts made brief mention of other types
of reviews but defaulted to focusing on SRs, compared to three texts that made brief mention
of SRs but went on to focus on other types of reviews. SRs were also given prominence when
KS was generally discussed, with phrasing like “evidence syntheses such as systematic
reviews” (n=3 texts) and “systematic and other reviews” (n=34 texts). Three texts explicitly
stated that the term “systematic review” was being used to refer to all varieties of KS. Other
specific methodologies that were mentioned relatively frequently were “meta-analyses” (n=71
texts) and “scoping reviews” (n=71 texts), with an additional three terms (n=4 texts) that
incorporated the word “scoping”. In cases where authors referred to KS broadly, the two most
common terms used were “evidence synthesis” (n=58 texts) and “knowledge synthesis”
(n=42 texts). A strong link between KS and evidence is apparent in the KS nomenclature
used in the texts, as there were 18 terms used for KS in addition to “evidence syntheses” that
incorporated the word “evidence”. Examples include “evidence based syntheses”, “evidence
based products” and “evidence based reviews.”

11



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

The language that the authors used to describe their KS work can imply power relationships
between HIPs and clients, whether used consciously or unconsciously. At least one instance
of power-related language was observed in 238 (44%) of the texts. Three types of language
were used in the sample: power-neutral language, language that places power with the client,
and language that implies power is shared by HIPs and clients (see figure 5). Some authors
used language that falls into different power categories interchangeably within the same text.

Vague but power-neutral language was often used to describe HIPs’ KS work, such as
“participating” in KS, “contributing” to KS, or being “involved” in KS. A similar number of
texts used language that imply a secondary role for HIPs, where clients hold the power.
Examples of this kind of language are: clients “using” HIPs or “including” HIPs in KS;
references to “serving” clients outside of descriptions of formal library services, such as
“Health sciences librarians now serve on systematic review teams”; and “supporting” clients
that are undertaking KS projects, which was the most common language used in this category.
Finally, language that implies that HIPs and clients share power included “partnering” or
“collaborating” with clients, and referring to the HIP-Client relationship as collegial. As
Figure 5 illustrates, all three categories of language were noted over time, with instances of
power-neutral language and language that situates power with the client consistently
occurring more often than instances of power-sharing language in texts from the latter half of
the timeframe covered by the dataset.

Figure 5. Counts of texts with power-related language by year of publication.

Themes

Three broad themes and four subthemes were identified in the sample. Note that individual
texts often contain content that is related to multiple codes and themes. Individual codes can
also be inter-related across themes and subthemes. For example, the code “HIP workload”

12



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

affects and is affected by the code “library policies and processes for KS” and Theme 3,
Pushing Back. Likewise, the code “burnout” is listed under Matters that Concerns Individual
HIPs; the occurrence of burnout in a given context may or may not lead to elements of
Pushing Back, like “scaling back KS service”.

Theme 1: The Case for KS Work

The Case for KS Work is persistent throughout the dataset, starting with the first occurrence of
associated codes in 2001 (see Figure 6 and Table 2). This theme relays several messages to
the reader. According to this theme KS is an important part of both the overall research
landscape and evidence-informed practice for health professionals, as the highest level of
evidence in the evidence pyramid. The importance of KS, and demand for KS support from
HIPs’ clients, has been growing and only continues to grow. KS presents opportunities for
HIPs to make a significant contribution to research, improve their credibility with clients,
prove their worth to employers, and maybe even bring in extra funding to the library if
researchers are charged for KS services.

Moreover, we are told that HIPs are important for KS work. Authors frequently link HIPs to
better quality end products, citing recommendations to work with a librarian from recognized
KS methods guidance and studies indicating that KS projects with HIP contributors are of
better quality than those KS projects without a HIP. Language such as “important”,
“valuable”, “significant”, “key”, “central”, “crucial”, “essential”, “vital”, and “pivotal” were
used to describe HIPs’ role and expertise. Some authors made more elaborate statements on
the importance of HIPs to KS such as “The full scope of systematic reviews and related
methodologies comprises a tapestry of interconnected skills through which librarians form the
weft, being connected in various ways at different levels throughout the entire process, with
new roles and tasks emerging for the profession to explore”26. This “full scope” refers to HIPs
taking on a wide-ranging set of activities from screening to project management, as some
authors see HIPs as a driving force for KS projects: “The involvement of an informationist
can keep the project moving forward even when team members rotate off because of other
duties”27.

Finally, this theme tells us that HIPs have an obligation to take on various facets of KS work.
This includes:

• Educating others: “In our role as information professionals, it is our responsibility to
actively clarify the indications for and differences between systematic reviews,
“systematic-like” reviews, comprehensive literature reviews, and patient-specific
precision inquiries as we proactively engage in training our users and colleagues
alike”28. (emphasis added)

• Improving the quality of research publications: “Librarians should use their unique
knowledge and experience to ensure that reporting of search strategies in
meta-analyses is improved”29. (emphasis added)

• Advancing KS methodologies: “Due to the developing nature of scoping reviews, we
also suggest how librarians could and should involve themselves in this emerging area
of the knowledge synthesis landscape”30. (emphasis added)

13



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

• And simply furthering HIPs’ own best interests: “To be successful, librarians must
embrace this increased involvement in supporting the production of higher levels of
evidence”31 (emphasis added).

Figure 6. Number of texts coded to themes over time

Table 2: Codes mapped to Theme 1: The Case for KS Work

Theme 1:
The Case for
KS Work

-HIPs are important for KS
-HIPs are uniquely positioned
-HIPs [could] do more than search
-KS on the rise

-KS benefits HIPs
-link between KS and EBP
-link between KS and research funding

Theme 2: Everyday Realities of KS

Most of the descriptive codes used in this study fell into the theme Everyday Realities of KS,
and this theme is persistent throughout the texts, starting in the year 2000 (see figure 6). Many
of the codes directly relate to everyday practice, and they were discussed in a combination of
positive, neutral, and negative ways. This theme tells us about the challenges of KS work,
how HIPs attempt to mitigate these challenges, and their successes through four subthemes:
The World of KS, System-Level Matters, Matters of Daily Practice, and Matters Concerning
Individual HIPs (see Table 3: Codes mapped to Theme 2: Everyday Realities of KS).

Subtheme: The World of KS

The World of KS focuses on aspects of KS methods, KS products, and the researchers doing
KS work. This sub-theme tells us that while KS research may have been the domain of elite
researchers in 200532, that did not remain the case. In some instances HIPs have actively

14



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

worked with faculty to promote KS and increase the number of students undertaking KS
projects33. Other times, KS has been embraced by students–or at least by their faculty
mentors–without HIP intervention. In 2018, Wissinger noted that “In the last year, I have
noticed a substantial increase in the number of graduate students who have been sent to me
because their faculty advisor told them they need to do a systematic review. This was more of
an oddity than a concern until undergraduate students started coming to me because they had
received the same advice”34. In 2022 Foster, Sullton, and Crews reported that 50% of 225
respondents to their faculty survey indicated that they expect graduate students to be able to
conduct KS reviews35.

The quality of KS publications and adherence to methods and reporting guidance appears to
be of great interest to HIPs, and this theme tells us that many researchers – including
academic faculty, health practitioners, and students alike - do not truly understand what is
required to do KS properly or have the skills to do it. Some clients opt not to work with HIPs.

15



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

Table 3: Codes mapped to Theme 2: Everyday Realities of KS

Theme 2:
Everyday
Realities
of KS

2.1 The World
of KS

-KS 101
-KS reporting
-KS standards
& guidelines
-Quality of KS
work/products

-Researcher resistance
-Researchers are
ill-equipped for KS
-Researchers are not
working with HIPs
-Student KS projects

2.2 System-Level
Matters

-Decreased demand
for KS service
-External optics
-Fee-based service
-KS is not a priority
-KS services
-Library administration
-Library policies &
processes for KS

-No demand for KS
support
-Resource limitations
-Service
expansion/scalability
-Standardisation
-Sustainability of KS
service
-Teamwork in providing
-KS service
-Tiered services

2.3 Matters of Daily
Practice

-Communication with[in]
the research team
-Consumer health
-Data management
-HIP involvement in journal
peer review
-Journal editors/publishers
-KS instruction for clients

-Languages other than
English
-Negotiating with
clients
-Predatory publications
-Retractions/corrections
for publications
-Searching
-Tools

2.4 Matters Concerning
Individual HIPs

-Ability to support KS
-Feeling
disrespected/undervalued
-Getting credit for KS
work
-Interpersonal
challenges
-HIP agency

-HIP skill development
-HIPs’ return on
investment
-HIPs’ workload
-Restrictions on HIP
scope of practice
-Stress / burnout

Some push back against HIPs’ guidance, as noted by Yang and colleagues: “The ISs
[Information Specialists] stated that clients would push to take shortcuts that would sacrifice
the quality of a systematic review and at times go against review standards”36. In other cases,
HIPs give researchers what they need to successfully engage in KS, as Roth notes: “I have
seen changes in the level of work performed by our graduate students, who have said that
without this service, they would have never been able to do this type of research”37.

Subtheme: System-Level Matters

The subtheme System-Level Matters includes matters that are larger than the individual HIP,
though individuals may contribute to, or be affected by, them. Descriptions of formalized KS

16



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

services and library policies and procedures for KS work feature heavily in this theme, as
authors share their attempts to scope KS work and organize services to manage the associated
challenges. Two codes that stand out from the others in this subtheme are “external optics”
and “library administration”. The occurrence of “External optics” suggests that we are
concerned about outsider views on HIPs, KS services, and the profile of HIPs and their
libraries. The code “library administration” is somewhat related to external optics, as the texts
in the dataset were often written by rank-and-file HIPs, rather than library leaders. Library
administration may have different views than the HIPs doing KS work38,39, and while they
may not be directly involved in KS work, administrators’ views and decisions affect KS
services. HIPs want administrators to be on their side; in addition to generic calls for
“support”, HIPs see a role for administration in ensuring appropriate training38,40,41, finding
ways to work KS into existing roles without burning HIPs out38,42,43, and giving HIPs
permission to decline taking on KS projects when appropriate44,45.

Subtheme: Matters of Daily Practice

Matters of Daily Practice are those that are most directly tied to the technical aspects of daily
KS work. Frequently used codes in this theme are “searching”, “tools”, and “instruction for
clients”.

Subtheme: Matters Concerning Individual HIPs

This theme looks inwards, dealing with issues that impact individual HIPs involved in KS
work, from practical matters like skill development to those related to job satisfaction and
burnout. This subtheme tells us that those who undertake KS work can face significant
challenges. The code “HIP Workload”–used for mentions of the volume of KS work, the
amount of time it takes, references to work efficiency, or balancing KS work with other
responsibilities–has been consistently present over the years. This code is distinct from, but
ties to, the Theme 1 code “KS on the rise”. For example, Saragossi’s 2022 conference abstract
“Bibliometric Analysis as a Method to Justify Library Personnel” speaks to the increasing
volume of KS work overtime, and we can infer the impact of this increased output on HIP
workloads:

“There has been a consistent increase in the output of evidence syntheses at Stony
Brook University over time. The number has doubled since 2014. Based on first
quarter publications for 2022 it can be inferred that we will double last year’s
output. Additionally, from 2015-2021 the output has increased by 75% while
library personnel has remained consistent at 5 full-time health sciences
librarians46”.

HIPs have also been discussing KS work in terms of return on investment, often
characterizing a loss in terms of projects abandoned by the research team before completion,
and the return as authorship or otherwise getting credit for their work in KS publications.
Seeing KS work as an investment, and recent mentions of HIP personal agency–either in
terms of HIPs’ desire for agency, or HIPs possessing the ability to choose what KS work they
undertake and having control over both how the work is completed and the products of their
work–may signal a shift in how HIPs view their role in KS.

Theme 3: Pushing Back

17



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

The codes belonging to Theme 3: Pushing Back started appearing in 2013 and while the
frequency of these codes is comparatively low, they are a stark contrast to Theme 1 (See
figure 6 and table 4).

This theme suggests that HIPs’ relationship to KS and KS researchers is changing. HIPs
perceive themselves as–or want to be–“[. . . ] coauthors and equal collaborators with faculty,
not just as ‘free labor’ or at-will service professionals”47. Rather than struggle to meet KS
demand, some HIPs are being “more discerning about whom [they] provide the service to”48

or are otherwise scaling back on the services they offer. Some HIPs have started imposing
conditions on service to manage demand, fund positions, facilitate better quality end products,
ensure HIPs receive authorship on publications, and give HIPs a mechanism to walk away
from projects that turn out to be methodologically poor. Examples of such conditions include:
requiring completed protocols in advance; only working with teams that have a minimum
number of team members; requiring researchers sign memoranda of understanding outlining
terms of service; or charging fees for KS service. Sometimes the results of introducing these
conditions are unexpected. For example, Lackey and colleagues found that demand for
service went up, not down, after moving to a fee-based “core facility” system49. While
authors discussed ways to deal with high levels of demand for KS service throughout the
years examined, an explicit statement that HIPs’ needs take priority only emerged in Deaver
and colleagues’ 2022 MLA conference abstract. They state, “Rather than focus on what
systematic review service users want, we chose to first consider what the librarians running
the service need”50.

The occurrence of evocative, sometimes almost antagonistic, language used in the texts also
suggests that an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with elements of the status quo may be
building. The conference abstracts entitled “Sharpening the Other Side of the Dual Edged
Systematic Review Sword: Expecting More From Our Users”51, “Required, not suggested:
Creating a rigorous protocol template for improved uptake and efficacy”52, and Campbell and
Dorgan’s account of KS instruction at their library, below, suggest that not everything is okay:

These [classes] frequently fill up within a day or two of being posted, even though
there is no formal advertising. This popularity is a double-edged sword. We know
that offering the class has actually increased the demand for consultations,
because participants inform us that they have made an appointment after having
taken the class. One of our librarian colleagues described the courses as
effectively “painting targets on our backs53” (emphasis added).

Table 4: Codes mapped to Theme 3: Pushing Back

Theme 3:
Pushing Back

-Conditions on service
-HIPs not interested in KS
-Putting HIP needs first

-Scaling back KS service
-There’s more to research support than SRs
-There’s more to searching than KS

Commentary
This exploratory study was guided by three broad questions: What do health information
professionals talk about when they discuss knowledge synthesis? How do they talk about it?

18



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

And who is doing the talking? The data gathered through these individual questions are
interconnected, and most useful when considered together.

Health information professionals communicate their practice-driven innovations and research
so that the entire HIP community can learn and grow. Therefore, it is unsurprising that most
of the codes identified in this study fell into the Theme Everyday Realities of KS. This is
consistent with Spencer and Eldrege’s scoping review on the roles HIPs play in KS54.
However, a key difference between Spencer and Eldrege’s results and those presented here is
that their results are largely framed in an outwards-looking fashion, focusing on what HIPs do
and their outputs. This study adds to the literature by looking inwards as well: noting matters
that affect individual HIPs, asking whose voices are most prominent, and being mindful that
these texts represent discussions that we have amongst ourselves, not with our clients. These
additional elements that are less closely tied to everyday practice can prompt us to think more
deeply about our collective relationship to KS. Perhaps the most thought-provoking things to
come from the results presented here are 1) the prominence of The Case for KS Work and the
tensions between that theme and Pushing Back, 2) the shift in author voice that took place
around 2013, and 3) how the results of this study relate to our professional identity.

The Case for KS Work vs. Pushing Back

After being immersed in the texts, the most striking thing to emerge was the prominence of
The Case for KS Work. It is reasonable to expect promotion of the HIP’s role in earlier texts,
such as McGowan and Sampson’s 2005 article “Systematic reviews need systematic
searchers”32. But twenty years later we are constantly reminding each other – even if it is only
by a line or two in a background section - how important KS is to our clients and our
everyday business, and how important HIPs are to KS. Surprisingly, at times we are also told
that we have an obligation to take on this work. The audience for these texts is fellow HIPs,
not health researchers or other actors in the research world who may not be aware of our
expertise, so why is this theme so prevalent? Some HIPs expressed that they felt undervalued,
prompting the code feeling disrespected / undervalued; Does stressing the importance of KS
work and HIPs’ role in KS stem from a widespread feeling of being underappreciated? Or is
it something else?

Theme 1 brings to mind certain aspects of Ettarh’s 2018 essay on vocational awe and
librarianship; namely that our work is important and it must be done for the good of our
clientele and society more broadly, even though it might contribute to job creep and
burnout55.The following quote from 2022 hints at an underlying mindset implied by theme 1:

The aim of our research is to inspire medical librarians to become guardians
of their organization’s systematic review output either by offering peer review
of researchers developed searches, or by offering librarian-mediated searches.
That [way] each SR project should be based on a high quality search from the
start of the project56. (emphasis added)

One way or another, some HIPs appear to have become the self-appointed guardians of KS
integrity. This notion is reinforced by Hannake’s commentary on the benefits of student KS
projects. They point out that many HIPs have difficulty accepting KS as learning exercises,
and feel obliged to talk students out of doing KS projects altogether57. KS methods are
research methods like any other; would a HIP be determined to talk a student out of doing an

19



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

interview study or a survey? Perhaps the literature-based methods of KS make HIPs more
invested in these works. But making ourselves responsible for the quality of all our clients’
research output is irrational and self-defeating when HIPs do not have direct control over the
work itself.

The benefits outlined by Theme 1 are appealing: HIPs get an improved reputation; we can
build relationships with clients and add publications to our CVs while making a worthwhile
contribution to research; and in some cases, fees for KS work can generate revenue for the
library. But the potential challenges discussed in Theme 2, Everyday Realities of KS – such as
workload issues, resource limitations, and problems working with researchers - have led to
Theme 3 Pushing Back. With very few exceptions, the authors commenting on demand for
KS service in the texts examined here indicate that the demand is significant. The addition of
new roles and responsibilities with high client uptake cannot be sustained without adjusting
existing workload and responsibilities. Demetres and colleagues showed that HIPs working in
positions where KS is the focus of their job had significantly lower burnout scores than HIPs
who had KS tacked on to other duties43. This may be due to a more balanced workload than
that experienced by HIPs filling multiple roles. High volumes of work may also require a
superficial, transactional relationship with clients where HIPS do not feel that their work is
valued, rather than meaningful collaborations. We do know that dedicated KS positions can
come with HIP-client relationships where HIPs share more equal status with researchers than
they might otherwise enjoy49. A dedicated KS role could also signal that the work these HIPs
are doing is highly valued by their institution. This could also impact job satisfaction. Since
HIPs have expressed a desire to be regarded as equals and have agency over their KS work, it
is worth asking whether it could be a misstep to formalize KS services in situations where
dedicated KS positions are not a possibility. Some libraries have already moved to limiting
the support they offer for KS, and others may wish to follow suit. A modest but noticeable
jump in Theme 3 codes in 2023 may indicate that a shift in how HIPs view KS, and their role
in it, is just beginning. Only time will tell if and how that shift plays out.

The Shift Towards the Academic Voice

Up until 2012, the number of hospital library affiliations, special library affiliations, and
academic library affiliations within the texts was not dramatically different. In contrast,
Myers’ examination of MLA conferences from 2001-2019 found that 78% of total conference
content was authored or co-authored by HIPs from academic libraries, and the amount
authored or co-authored by HIPs from hospitals (19%) was roughly proportionate to the
number of hospital librarians in the MLA membership at the time6. Since it is generally
accepted that when it comes to conference participation and publication academic HIPs face
fewer barriers, and more supports and incentives for participation, the relatively even
representation among sectors from 2000 to 2012 suggests that most academic HIPs had not
embraced KS to the same extent as special or hospital HIPs in the early 2000s. The year
2013seems to mark a shift in the author affiliation types represented in the collected texts,
with academic voices starting to outnumber the voices of HIPs working in hospitals and
special library environments. What could have prompted this shift? This study was not
designed to uncover the underlying causes for what was observed. However, there are two
potential factors whose influence in the years leading up to 2013 may have eventually led to
an increase in both the number of texts framed in terms of KS in general, and academic HIPs’
voices becoming more prominent.

20



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

1. Evidence Based Practice

The first thing to consider is that while evidence-based practice (EBP) is currently considered
a foundation of Western health services and health education, it only started to gain
momentum and be widely adopted in medicine and nursing in the 1990s and early 2000s58,59.
EBP caught the attention of HIPs as well – likely in no small part because centering evidence
in practice also elevates the importance of the source of that evidence, the library. Funk
conducted an analysis of word usage in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association and
Journal of the Medical Library Association in 2013. Appendix B of their manuscript shows
that use of the word “evidence” in the publications started to take off around 200060. Today,
academic HIPs are often involved in teaching aspects of EBP to health students. The
hierarchy of evidence for clinical intervention questions places KS–specifically, systematic
reviews, meta-analyses, and reviews of reviews–at the top of the evidence pyramid, as the
“best” form of evidence to inform clinical decision making. With the increasing pervasiveness
of the evidence hierarchy and EBP, it is easy to suppose that students and health practitioners
might come to consider systematic reviews and meta-analyses the best form of research
evidence, full stop. The texts examined here showed that, as a group, HIPs have a general
tendency to talk about systematic reviews rather than use broad terms, like KS, or discuss
other types of reviews. If we combine these two factors, we might begin to understand why
some researchers do not understand the full range of KS options and want to do a systematic
review for every type of research question, as has been noted by some HIPs.

2. Research Impact Metrics and Research Funding Decisions

We must also consider the potential influence of research metrics. The early 2000’s was a
busy time for those interested in research metrics, and bibliometrics specifically. The
Academic Ranking of World Universities (now the Shanghai Ranking) first came out in
200361 followed by the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings in 200462.
The H-index was proposed as a new way of measuring authors’ scholarly impact in 200563,
closely followed by several variant metrics64. The database Scopus launched in 2004, and
underwent various enhancements over the following years: they released author identifiers in
2006; affiliation identifiers that “[allow] users to see a holistic view of an institution’s research
output” were released in 200765; the journal performance metrics Source-Normalized Impact
per Paper (SNIP) and SciMago Journal Rank were incorporated in 2010; and Scopus
integrated with ORCID persistent identifiers in 201266. 2012 was also the year that The San
Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment–now simply the Declaration on Research
Assessment, or DORA–came out as a response to the explosion of readily available research
metrics. It featured “recommendations for improving the way in which the quality of research
output is evaluated”67. Research metrics and performance-based research funding was even
discussed in the BMJ in 200868.

Research metrics and institutional rankings can offer universities, and arguably research
hospitals, prestige that attracts highly skilled personnel, students, funding69 and philanthropic
contributions. For individual researchers, demonstrating high levels of research impact
demonstrates career success to those both inside and outside the organisation, which can open
doors to the researcher. Demonstrating research impact is most directly connected to KS by
the citation advantage enjoyed by published KS articles. Research published in 2003, 2004,
and 2005 demonstrated that in the medical field, rigorous systematic reviews and

21



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

meta-analyses received significantly more citations than publications of other research
designs70-72. If a researcher wanted to maximize the number of citations they receive to reap
the benefits of increased notoriety and demonstrate effectiveness as a researcher in their grant
applications, conducting KS projects would help boost their numbers.

What’s more, in 2005 Patsopoulos and colleagues noted that

The superiority in citation impact of meta-analyses and secondarily RCTs is
consistent with the prominent role given to these designs by evidence-based
medicine,1-4 despite the criticisms leveled against both designs.15,20 The further
dissemination of hierarchies of evidence may further increase the citations for
meta-analyses and RCTs. If the proposal that each study should start and end
when a meta-analysis is adopted,21 meta-analyses may become even more highly
cited74.

The latter part of this statement refers to a 2002 article in JAMA that criticized a general lack
of published randomized trials that frame their results within the context of the evidence
generated by other trials. At one point the authors of the JAMA article state “The public
would be served better if systematic reviews were always available before new clinical studies
began, which would reduce unwanted duplication of research and help ensure that new
research had been designed to build on lessons from earlier research”73. This argument
expands the relationship between KS and research funding from providing indications of
researchers’ success through bibliometrics, to demonstrating to funders that the study being
considered for a grant is needed and its funding justified. If no KS work has been done on a
specific research question, this may prompt some researchers to take on a KS project as a
preliminary step before conducting primary research. Trainees who are mentored in such a
way could in turn pass the practice on to those they later mentor, contributing to the
ever-increasing volume of KS in general and student KS projects noted in the texts in this
study. As researchers embraced KS, it was only a matter of time before academic HIPs began
to publish and present on KS more frequently.

Our Collective Relationship with KS and Professional Identity

Hicks’ 2014 work on librarians’ professional identity found that the idea of service is
fundamental to librarians’ professional identity, but there can be a tension between service vs.
professional expertise being the defining factor that makes librarians relevant. If language that
is power-neutral or that situates power with the client are linked to the idea of service, and
language where power is shared is connected to the idea that knowledge and skills are what
define HIPs’ professional identity, this could help explain both why individual texts included
a mix of power-language categories and the relatively low use of language implying that
power is shared. Hicks also notes “Not only was the service repertoire used to highlight how
much clients needed the services librarians offered, but it was also used to highlight the
perceived ignorance of clients regarding these invaluable and indispensable services”74. This
statement can be linked to the occurrence of the codes HIPs are important for KS and
Researchers are not working with HIPs. Finally, Hicks proposes that “recognition was
particularly important as librarians needed it to maintain their sense of professional value”74.
This ties to HIPs’ expressed desire within the texts to be considered equals with clients, and
mentions of receiving credit for their KS work.

22



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

Areas for Future Research
There are a variety of areas discussed here that could lend themselves to additional questions
and further study. For example, do indications of Pushing Back continue in these
communication venues–or others–over time? How do HIPs navigate the tension between
wanting to contribute their expertise to KS and meet client demand for service, and the need
to set boundaries around providing that service? How do service and expertise interact when
it comes to HIPs professional identity? Is collaboration between HIPs from different types of
organisations and geographic areas really as rare as the results suggest, and if so, what factors
promote these collaborations? Readers may identify additional questions as well.

Conclusion
As an exploratory study, this work prompts the reader to reflect on their own relationship with
KS, and the relationship between information professionals and KS more broadly. The Case
for KS Work paints an attractive picture. Everyone wants to do meaningful work and if
individual HIPs and their libraries can benefit in the process, through enhanced reputation or
otherwise, all for the better. But as with anything else, KS work comes with challenges, and
some HIPs may find that everyday KS work may not live up to their expectations or consider
it worth the amount of effort involved. While individuals’ personal experience with KS may
vary, this study’s findings suggest that our collective relationship with KS work has been
gradually changing, and HIPs are starting to become more comfortable with setting
boundaries around KS work for their own benefit.

Acknowledgments
Thank you to Andrea Szwajcer (University of Manitoba) for engaging with me in discussions
on research in general and this study in particular. Thanks also go to the people who gave me
feedback on various iterations of this manuscript: Andrea Szwajcer (University of Manitoba),
Carol Cooke (University of Manitoba).

Conflict of Interest
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Data Availability Statement
The following material is available under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, in the University of
Manitoba Dataverse repository(75) at <https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/TJUCSG>.

• Pdf file - Complete reference list of texts examined

• Excel file – cases with attribute coding

23

https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/TJUCSG


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

• Excel file – cross tabs, descriptive codes related to the research question “What do we
talk about?”

• Pdf file - Code definitions

References
1. Better together in evidence synthesis: The evidence synthesis taxonomy initiative | JBI
[Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 4]. Available from:
https://evidencesynthesistaxonomy.com/better-together-in-evidence-synthesis-the-evidence-
synthesis-taxonomy-initiative/.

2. Slebodnik M, Pardon K, Hermer J. Who’s Publishing Systematic Reviews? An
Examination Beyond the Health Sciences. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship
[Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 Nov 22]; doi:10.29173/istl2671

3. Kallaher A, Eldermire ERB, Fournier CT, Ghezzi-Kopel K, Johnson KA, Morris-Knower J,
Scinto-Madonich S, Young S. Library systematic review service supports evidence-based
practice outside of medicine. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2020;46:102222.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102222

4. Ghezzi-Kopel K, Ault J, Chimwaza G, Diekmann F, Eldermire E, Gathoni N, Kelly J,
Kinengyere AA, Kocher M, Lwoga ET, et al. Making the case for librarian expertise to
support evidence synthesis for the sustainable development goals. Research Synthesis
Methods. 2022;13:77–87. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1528

5. Premji Z, Splenda R, Young S. An exploration of business librarian participation in
knowledge synthesis reviews. College & Research Libraries. 2022;83:314.
doi:10.5860/crl.83.2.314

6. Myers B. What we talk about when we talk about medical librarianship: An analysis of
Medical Library Association annual meeting abstracts, 2001–2019. J Med Libr Assoc.
2020;108:364–377. doi:10.5195/jmla.2020.836

7. Wilson V. Something for everyone? A content analysis of provincial library association
conference sessions. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library & Information Practice &
Research. 2010;5:1–13. doi:10.21083/partnership.v5i1.1097

8. Rudd S. Trends in health librarianship topics presented at four UK-based conferences
between 2017 and 2022: A thematic analysis. Health Information & Libraries Journal.
2024;1–8. doi:10.1111/hir.12561

9. Julien H, Fena C. Thirty-one years of the canadian journal of information and library
science: A content analysis. Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences.
2018;42:1–17.

10. Chang Y-W. Characteristics of articles coauthored by researchers and practitioners in
library and information science journals. The Journal of Academic Librarianship.

24

https://evidencesynthesistaxonomy.com/better-together-in-evidence-synthesis-the-evidence-synthesis-taxonomy-initiative/
https://evidencesynthesistaxonomy.com/better-together-in-evidence-synthesis-the-evidence-synthesis-taxonomy-initiative/
https://dx.doi.org/10.29173/istl2671
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102222
https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1528
https://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.2.314
https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.836
https://dx.doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v5i1.1097
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hir.12561


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

2016;42:535–541. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2016.06.021

11. Sung H-Y, Parboteeah P. Diversity-related research reported in high-impact library and
information science journal literature: A content analysis. Library & Information Science
Research. 2017;39:77–84. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2017.03.002

12. Hashemian M, Adibi P, Yamani N, Rahimi A, Zare-Farashbandi F. Clinical informationist
services challenges: A qualitative content analysis of the literature. Journal of Hospital
Librarianship. 2021;21:319–327. doi:10.1080/15323269.2021.1982257

13. Given LM. Constructivism [Internet]. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research
methods. SAGE publications, Inc.; 2008 [cited 2024 Nov 5].

14. Hewson C. Mixed methods research [Internet]. The SAGE dictionary of social research
methods. SAGE publications, Ltd; 2006 [cited 2024 Nov 5].

15. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles; SAGE;
2013.

16. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology. 2006;3:77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

17. Kiger ME, Varpio L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131.
Medical Teacher. 2020;42:846–854. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030

18. NVivo 14. Lumivero; 2023.

19. DeepL Translate: The world’s most accurate translator [Internet]. Cologne Germany:
DeepL SE; [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.deepl.com/translator.

20. Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review
types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries
Journal. 2019;36:202–222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276

21. Conference Programmes / Programmes de congres - Canadian Health Libraries
Association / Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov
6]. Available from: https://www.chla-absc.ca/CHLA_FA_LIST_3815985.php.

22. White PJ. Evidence-based medicine for consumers: a role for the Cochrane Collaboration.
J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90:218–222.

23. Lohr AM, Van Gorden N, McClelland DJ, Dubinsky E, Gerald LB, Wilkinson-Lee A,
Carvajal SC. Updating search strategies for literature reviews with OUR2D2: an open-source
computer application. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109:317–322. doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.1105

24. Fang MLE, Persily G, Reavie K, Owen D, Coppernoll-Blach P. Expert Searchers’
Contributions to Evidence-based Health Policy Making [Internet]. Poster presented at:
Medical Library Association Annnual Conference; 2006; Pheonix. Available from:

25

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.06.021
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.03.002
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15323269.2021.1982257
https://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
https://www.deepl.com/translator
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
https://www.chla-absc.ca/CHLA_FA_LIST_3815985.php
https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1105


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

https://www.mlanet.org/d/do/1886

25. Fang ML. Medical librarian’s contributions to evidence-based health policy decision
making in california [Internet]. Poster presented at: Medical Library Association Annual
Conference; 2013; Boston, MA.

26. Ginier EC, Anderson PF. Librarians in systematic review teams: Extracting patterns of
roles and tasks from the published literature [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at:
Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2018; Atlanta, GA.

27. Price C, Riese V, Lobner K, Friel Blanck J, Anton B. Beyond the Search: Librarian
Involvement on the Systematic Review Team [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at:
Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2015; Austin, TX.

28. Fox ZE, Williams AM, Blasingame MN, Koonce TY, Kusnoor SV, Su J, Lee P, Epelbaum
MI, Naylor HM, DesAutels SJ, et al. Why equating all evidence searches to systematic
reviews defies their role in information seeking. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107:613–617.
doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.707

29. Clifton S, Tonn B, Coffman M, Ditzler W, Hopkins M, Richards J. Connecting the dots:
An analysis of search strategy reporting in meta-analyses [Internet]. Poster presented at:
Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2008; Chicago, IL.

30. Morris M, Boruff JT, Gore GC. Scoping reviews: Establishing the role of the librarian. J
Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104:346–354. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.020

31. Cobus-Kuo L, Gore G, Kloda L. Research syntheses in graduate research: A scoping
review [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: CHLA/ABSC Annual Conference; 2014
Jun; Montreal, QC. Available from:
https://www.chla-absc.ca/docs/ConferenceProgram2014.pdf.

32. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr
Assoc. 2005;93:74–80.

33. Nolfi DA, Sasso MD. Situating Systematic Reviews and Librarians at the Nexus of
Teaching and Research [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library
Association; 2019; Chicago, IL.

34. Wissinger CL. Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic
review process? J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:248–250. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.387

35. Foster MJ, Fulton S, Crews ME, Halling TD, Herbert BE, Sewell R. Reflection of needs:
Faculty survey on systematic review experiences and expectations [Internet]. Lightning Talk
presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2022; New Orleans, LA.

36. Yang L, Orchanian-Cheff A, Anderson M, Farrell A, Tripp T. Implementing a three-tiered
service model for knowledge syntheses at an academic teaching hospital. Journal of the
Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé

26

https://www.mlanet.org/d/do/1886
https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.707
https://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.020
https://www.chla-absc.ca/docs/ConferenceProgram2014.pdf
https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.387


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

du Canada. 2020;41:46–66. doi:10.29173/jchla29436

37. Roth SC. Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the
educational needs of researchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:514–520.
doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.430

38. Desmeules R, Campbell S, Dorgan M. Acknowledging librarians’ contributions to
systematic review searching. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal
de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2024 Jan
8];37. doi:10.5596/c16-014

39. Ross-White A. An environmental scan of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at
Queen’s University: 2020 update. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association /
Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2024
Jan 8];42. doi:10.29173/jchla29517

40. Townsend WA, Anderson PF, Ginier EC, MacEachern MP, Saylor KM, Shipman BL,
Smith JE. A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews. J Med Libr
Assoc. 2017;105:268–275. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.189

41. Tietgen JJ, Vardell E. Paths to Systematic Review Librarianship: An Exploratory Study
[Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference;
2021; Virtual

42. Justice EM, Belleh E, Easterby-Gannett S, Moran D, Evans J, Riesenberg LA. Finding
our way in the world of systematic reviews: Hospital librarians contribute to the creation of
systematic reviews [Internet]. Poster presented at: Medical Library Association Annual
Conference; 2013; Boston, MA.

43. Demetres MR, Wright DN, DeRosa AP. Burnout among medical and health sciences
information professionals who support systematic reviews: An exploratory study. J Med Libr
Assoc. 2020;108:89–97. doi:10.5195/jmla.2020.665

44. Howard AM, Butcher N. Daring to realize the dream of published systematic reviews
[Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference;
2017; Seattle, WA.

45. Nicholson J, McCrillis A, Williams JD. Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a
survey of health sciences librarians. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105:385–393.
doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.176

46. Saragossi J. Bibliometric analysis as a method to justify library personnel [Internet].
Lightning Talk presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference; 2022; New
Orleans, LA.

47. Saimbert MK, Pierce J (Jenny), Hargwood P, Oliver JT. Librarians collaborating with
faculty for scholarly publication [Internet]. Poster presented at: Medical Library Association
Annual Conference; 2011; Minneapolis, MN.

27

https://dx.doi.org/10.29173/jchla29436
https://dx.doi.org/10.29173/jchla29436
https://dx.doi.org/10.5596/c16-014
https://dx.doi.org/10.29173/jchla29517
https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.189
https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.665
https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.176


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

48. Krause K, Varman BG, Galati M, Huynh N. Systematic reviews: The evolution of a new
library service [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: CHLA/ABSC - MLA Joint
Conference; 2016 May; Toronto, ON.

49. Lackey MJ, Greenberg H, Rethlefsen ML. Building the systematic review core in an
academic health sciences library. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107:588–594.
doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.711

50. Deaver J, O’Hagan EC, Billings R. Reflecting on librarians’ needs: Renewing a
systematic review service [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library
Association Annual Conference; 2022; New Orleans, LA.

51. Sikora L, Bass MB. Sharpening the other side of the dual edged systematic review sword:
Expecting more from our users [Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: CHLA/ABSC
Annual Conference; 2018 Jun; St. John’s, NL. Available from:
https://www.chla-absc.ca/docs/chlaabsc18program.pdf.

52. Calleja S, Zeigler C. Required, not suggested: Creating a rigorous protocol template for
improved uptake and efficacy [Internet]. Poster presented at: CHLA/ABSC Annual
Conference; 2023 Jun; Halifax, NS. Available from:
https://www.chla-absc.ca/docs/CHLAABSC2023_FullProgram_20230525.pdf.

53. Campbell S, Dorgan M. What to do when everyone wants you to collaborate: Managing
the demand for library support in systematic review searching. J Can Health Libr Assoc.
2015;36:11–19. doi:10.29173/jchla/jabsc.v36i1.24353

54. Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: A scoping review. J
Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:46–56. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.82

55. Ettarh F. Vocational awe and librarianship: The lies we tell ourselves. In the Library with
the Lead Pipe [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2024 July 19]; Available from:
https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/.

56. Bramer WM. Information specialists: Guardians of scientific output of their institute
[Internet]. Oral presentation presented at: Medical Library Association Annual Conference;
2022; New Orleans, LA.

57. Hanneke R. The hidden benefits of helping students with systematic reviews. J Med Libr
Assoc. 2018;106:244–247. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.420

58. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based
medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–72. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71

59. McMenamin A, Sun C, Prufeta P, Raso R. The evolution of evidence-based practice.
Nursing Management. 2019;50:14. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000579000.09987.b0

60. Funk ME. Our words, our story: A textual analysis of articles published in the Bulletin of
the Medical Library Association/Journal of the Medical Library Association from 1961 to

28

https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.711
https://www.chla-absc.ca/docs/chlaabsc18program.pdf
https://www.chla-absc.ca/docs/CHLAABSC2023_FullProgram_20230525.pdf
https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla/jabsc.v36i1.24353
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82
https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/
https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.420
https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000579000.09987.b0


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

2010. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013;101:12–20. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.003

61. About Us [Internet]. ShanghaiRanking. [cited 2024 Nov 18]. Available from:
https://www.shanghairanking.com/about-arwu.

62. World University Rankings [Internet]. Times Higher Education (THE). 2018 [cited 2024
Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings.

63. Hirsch JE. An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
2005;102:16569–16572.

64. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than
the index? A comparison of nine different variants of the index using data from biomedicine.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2008;59:830–837.
doi:10.1002/asi.20806

65. Reflecting on 20 years of knowledge discovery: 20 years of supporting research and
innovation [Internet]. www.elsevier.com. [cited 2024 Nov 15]. Available from:
https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/20-years-of-discovery.

66. Scopus 20: 20 Years of supporting research and innovation [infographic] [Internet]. [cited
2024 Nov 15]. Available from:
https://images.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/7gQ1lpfQnPhIkyoSu0g8Wi/9f15d41b3534c0ed9c
7ff5ecfc19a3d8/Scopus_20_infographic_v2.jpg.

67. Read the Declaration [Internet]. DORA. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from:
https://sfdora.org/read/.

68. Watts G. Research funding goes metric. BMJ. 2008;337:a1805. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1805

69. Hicks D. Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy.
2012;41:251–261. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007

70. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: A
cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. BMC Med. 2003;1:1–7.
doi:10.1186/1741-7015-1-2

71. Bhandari M, Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB.
Doubling the impact: Publication of systematic review articles in orthopaedic journals. JBJS.
2004;86:1012.

72. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JPA. Relative citation impact of various study
designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005;293:2362–2366. doi:10.1001/jama.293.19.2362

73. Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials
published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2002;287:2799–2802.
doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2799

29

https://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.003
https://www.shanghairanking.com/about-arwu
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings
https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20806
https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/20-years-of-discovery
https://images.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/7gQ1lpfQnPhIkyoSu0g8Wi/9f15d41b3534c0ed9c7ff5ecfc19a3d8/Scopus_20_infographic_v2.jpg
https://images.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/7gQ1lpfQnPhIkyoSu0g8Wi/9f15d41b3534c0ed9c7ff5ecfc19a3d8/Scopus_20_infographic_v2.jpg
https://sfdora.org/read/
https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1805
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-1-2
https://dx.doi.rg/10.1001/jama.293.19.2362
https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2799


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

74. Hicks D. The construction of librarians’ professional identities: A discourse analysis / La
construction de l’identité professionnelle du bibliothécaire: Une analyse de discours.
Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science. 2014;38:251–270.

75. Neilson C. Data files for: An examination of health information professionals’ discourse
surrounding knowledge synthesis: A content analysis [Internet]. Borealis; 2025 [cited 2025
Aug 22]. Available from:
https://borealisdata.ca/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.5683/SP3/TJUCSG.

30

https://borealisdata.ca/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.5683/SP3/TJUCSG

