How do search systems impact systematic searching? A qualitative study

被引:2
作者
Hickner, Andy [1 ]
机构
[1] Weill Cornell Med, New York, NY 10065 USA
关键词
Systematic reviews; user experience; thematic analysis; qualitative research; usability; expert searching; librarians; information retrieval; bibliographic databases; search engine; GREY LITERATURE; TIME SPENT; REVIEWS; HEALTH;
D O I
10.5195/jmla.2023.1647
中图分类号
G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];
学科分类号
1205 ; 120501 ;
摘要
Objective: Systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis projects require systematic search methods. Search systems require several essential attributes to support systematic searching; however, many systems used in evidence synthesis fail to meet one or more of these requirements. I undertook a qualitative study to examine the effects of these limitations on systematic searching and how searchers select information sources for evidence synthesis projects. Methods: Qualitative data were collected from interviews with twelve systematic searchers. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: I used thematic analysis to identify two key themes relating to search systems: systems shape search processes, and systematic searching occurs within the information market. Many systems required for systematic reviews, in particular sources of unpublished studies, are not designed for systematic searching. Participants described various workarounds for the limitations they encounter in these systems. Economic factors influence searchers' selection of sources to search, as well as the degree to which vendors prioritize these users. Conclusion: Interviews with systematic searchers suggest priorities for improving search systems, and barriers to improvement that must be overcome. Vendors must understand the unique requirements of systematic searching and recognize systematic searchers as a distinct group of users. Better interfaces and improved functionality will result in more efficient evidence synthesis.
引用
收藏
页码:774 / 782
页数:9
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), 2016, Framework for information literacy for higher education
  • [2] Using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trial registration is insufficient: a cross-sectional study
    Banno, Masahiro
    Tsujimoto, Yasushi
    Kataoka, Yuki
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [3] A checklist to assess database-hosting platforms for designing and running searches for systematic reviews
    Bethel, Alison
    Rogers, Morwenna
    [J]. HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL, 2014, 31 (01) : 43 - 53
  • [4] A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches
    Bramer, Wichor M.
    de Jonge, Gerdien B.
    Rethlefsen, Melissa L.
    Mast, Frans
    Kleijnen, Jos
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2018, 106 (04) : 531 - 541
  • [5] Braun V., 2006, QUAL RES PSYCHOL, V3, P77, DOI [DOI 10.1191/1478088706QP063OA, 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
  • [6] Braun V., 2013, SUCCESSFUL QUALITATI
  • [7] Braun V, FAQs
  • [8] Conceptual and Design Thinking for Thematic Analysis
    Braun, Virginia
    Clarke, Victoria
    [J]. QUALITATIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2022, 9 (01) : 3 - 26
  • [9] It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks
    Bullers, Krystal
    Howard, Allison M.
    Hanson, Ardis
    Kearns, William D.
    Orriola, John J.
    Polo, Randall L.
    Sakmar, Kristen A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2018, 106 (02) : 198 - 207
  • [10] REALISM AND ANTIREALISM IN SOCIAL-SCIENCE
    BUNGE, M
    [J]. THEORY AND DECISION, 1993, 35 (03) : 207 - 235