Free communications (other interesting things)

Introduction

“Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter, blogs or social bookmarking tools provide the possibility to construct innovative article-level or journal-level metrics to gauge impact and influence”.

 (Gunther Eysenbach)

Sharing new information amongst peers using modern web technologies will help scholars and scientists to increase knowledge and advance their skills.
Lack of access to new research in medicine, has made communication between medical researchers and scholar necessary. The need for science to be put on public display, posted by medical specialists has led to the emergence of scientific publishing in blogs. Scientific blogging has thus become a scientific source par excellence.

Questions/Objectives

Why do medical librarians have so many difficulties in convincing medical researchers to read science blogs? True, it is not always that simple. Are all blogs of scientific value? Data mining is very demanding work. Or is “value” a matter of trust? Science bloggers inform us about their work and the work of other experts in the same field by pointing towards similar topics. A solution to such mistrust is to join scientific community networks. Blog Network Highlights is a good example of how to use science blogs as a media for spreading scientific news and highlights. Bora Zivkovic, one of the most popular bloggers in science and editor of the Scientific American blog, has succeeded in gathering bloggers from diverse scientific fields into one community.

Methods

Writing about researchers’ achievements, about highlights in medicine, is of the utmost importance. Creating a science blog with one’s own thoughts, results, and reviews is popular, but by no means easy. Recently, the evidence-based articles such as blog posts, have become very common in researchers’ practice and present a valid form in scholars’ literature. These new media are quickly accessible. Contribution of peer reviews by others in new media should follow the new technologies. Peer review brings criticism and makes important role in science. The numerous scientists move science from traditional journal paper into the web space. Although science blogging is not measured as well as are papers in well-established journals with impact factors. The crucial factor is the evaluation of papers. The citation index, or measure of the quality of a researchers’ work is only determined by the number of citations in the scientific literature in citation index databases. That is why skepticism in blogging is widespread among medical researchers.

Microblogging allows faster communication. Research Gate, a scientific network, has gathered scholars with the same field of interest. It allows researchers to post a clinical case, exchange new ideas throughout a discipline, seek advice, upload recent publications and articles, and share new information with other colleagues.

Over the last few years, the number of medical researchers at Research Gate network has been growing. Some mental barriers are falling as is the prejudice concerning displaying work online. Scholars are more willing to share their scientific work updating their status with achievements. As Research Gate is a researchers’ network, new articles appear every day as well as medical practice case reports. By showing the results of their research, scientists can help other colleagues with new discoveries and highlights. Any medical errors which arose by using outdated protocols can be prevented. Old topics go out and new ideas and questions come in. The greater visibility of scientific work has a reciprocal impact to the career of researchers.

Twitter, a social network, offers more possibilities than does communication alone, by reading, tweeting, retweeting. When a particular topic appears as a highlight at social network, it could be current (hot) for very long time, for days, even months. The phenomenon of visibility encourages people with the same or similar interests to feel free to share the information or to voice their own opinion, often leading to lively debate and energetic discussion. The use of Twitter by scholars is playing an ever-increasing role and many tweets are focused on science. 

Trust is the main component and that leads to recommended literature by tiny URL. A list of hashtags with various topics is ever-expanding. One of the most popular hashtags is #icanhazpdf, which helps to get at the article behind the pay wall, making it readily available. This represents a good way to share and promote a scientific paper, as well as individual research.

Results

Despite the skepticism, a new generation of medical professionals has started medical blogs, even in Serbia. Moreover, information about other researchers’ work can be found on the blogs of colleagues. Citation in blogs is faster than that caught by traditional bibliometrics. It bridges a gap between scholars, researches, and the audience. In addition, it helps build relationships between colleagues. The use of social networks among scholars, especially in the medical community is of great importance.

Discussion

The possibility for research to be cited on Twitter, with tweeted and retweeted links could change the face of bibliometrics. Bibliometricians and scientometricians still do not focus on research on Twitter, but the number of researchers and followers, and their presence and engagement on Twitter can no longer be ignored. Twitter citations, and linking directly to the information source is faster than the traditional route and could herald a “scientometrics 2.0” as a supplement to traditional scientometrics.

Acknowledgement

Many thanks to our colleague William Russell-Edu for linguistic assistance.

Introduction

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests are personalized genetic risk assessments sold directly to consumers over the internet. After purchasing a DTC genetic test, consumers send the company a sample of their saliva, which uses it to scan their DNA for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) which have been associated with various different complex diseases, such as diabetes or cancers. Using this method, companies claim to provide an assessment of the consumer’s genetic risks for these diseases, with the intention of encouraging them to mitigate any high risks by improving their health behaviour (e.g. increasing their level of exercise or improving their diet). However, there have been many criticisms of DTC genetic tests in the literature, including accusations of inaccuracy and unreliability.

One area of concern is the information provided to the consumer by the companies that sell the tests, with worries that the quantity and quality of information provided on company websites is frequently poor, with important information often left out and misleading information often included. For example, one content analysis found that there was a wide variation in the amount and usability of information provided on company websites, and stated that it was “apparent that most users would struggle to find and understand the important information on most sites”.¹ Another study found that a majority of websites did not “meet a minimum set of quality criteria” for the information they should provide, leading to “fundamental information deficits”.²  These findings raise questions about the ability of consumers to give fully informed consent to the DNA analysis, and to have access to the necessary information to correctly interpret and understand their results.  However, to the authors’ knowledge, no study has actually examined these information issues from the consumers’ point of view.

A second area of concern is the effect that the tests may have on the health behaviour and health anxiety of consumers. There has been much concern in the literature that (contrary to claims made by the companies) results showing an increased risk of disease may not cause an improvement in health behaviours, that results showing a decreased risk may actually encourage people to curtail their healthy behaviour efforts and that the tests may increase health anxiety. However, to the author’s knowledge, only three studies to date have examined the effect of the tests on groups of users.  The first of these was a survey of 1048 customers of three of the main DTC genetic testing companies, which found that a third had improved their diet and 14% had increased their exercise levels.³ In the second study, which consisted of interviews with 60 participants who had been given a free test, approximately one third had changed their behaviour and another third were planning to.⁴ In contrast the third study, in which 2037 were provided with a subsidised test, found no significant changes in participants’ level of exercise, proportion of fat in diet or health anxiety after three months.⁵    

Objectives

The study had two broad objectives.

Firstly, to investigate the informational aspects of DTC genetic tests from the consumers’ point of view. This included the information need of consumers, where and how they searched for information about the tests and their opinion of the information provided to them by the companies.

Secondly, to assess the effect of DTC genetic tests on consumers’ health behavior and health anxiety.

Methods

The study consisted of an online survey.  Respondents were identified and contacted through social media: namely Twitter, Facebook, internet forums and blogs, using a convenience sampling method. The study sample included both actual consumers of DTC genetic tests, and individuals who were considering purchasing a test, but had not yet done so (potential consumers).  This allowed a comparison between the two groups, who were asked questions about a variety of issues, including their information needs, information seeking behaviour and current health behaviour and health anxiety.

Results

A total of 275 usable responses were obtained. When respondents were asked where they had heard about DTC genetic tests, the most common response was blogs (35.7%), followed by friends, family or other social connection (29.2%) and the website of a company that sells the tests (24.4%).

The most common information that consumers wished to know before purchasing a test was to do with the coverage of the tests (32.3%), followed by details about the analyses used (21.1%), the cost of the tests (19.3%) and privacy issues (16.8%). The most common information source used by consumers was blogs (22.7%), followed by Google (18.0%), general non-specific websites (18.0%) and articles (11.0%). In total, 13.4% of consumers looked at no information source other than the websites of the companies that sell the tests, 40.1% looked at one other source and 27.3% looked at two other sources.  When information sources were divided into suitable and non-suitable sources (erring to the generous side in regards to suitable sources), 52.3% of consumers were found to have not used any suitable sources.

A change in health behavior was reported by 27.3% of consumers, all positive from the consumer’s point of view. Consumers were significantly more likely than potential consumers (p=0.022) to follow a combination of six common health behaviours (intake of salt, fat, fibre and fruit and vegetables, sufficient exercise and lack of smoking). A change in health anxiety was reported by 24.6% of consumers, with 85.3% of these changes a decrease in anxiety, 8.8% an increase and 5.9% a mixture of the two.  However, there was no significant difference between the current health anxiety levels of consumers and potential consumers.

Discussion

The results show a large variability in the information seeking behaviour of consumers of DTC genetic tests, with many reporting a detailed search for information and others only a little; although almost all participants looked for some information before purchasing a test.  If appropriate information was not provided on the company website, it is likely that those who did little searching were not exposed to it elsewhere, backing up the informational concerns raised in the literature and underlining the importance of good quality information provision by the companies.  Given the wide range of topics on which consumers wished information before purchasing, the importance of providing information on all aspects of the tests is also highlighted.

Despite concerns raised in the literature, no negative effects on health behaviour were identified in the study.  Also, although a survey of this type can never establish causation (and the convenience sampling method prevents generalisation to the population as a whole), the results appear to show a positive effect on health behaviour in a minority of consumers.  Taken together with the previously mentioned studies, these results should somewhat allay concerns about this aspect of the tests.  However, it should be noted that some respondents, if only a small minority, reported an increase in health anxiety.

Formed on the basis of voluntary cooperation and close coordination between partners, RBD Santé has existed for over ten years and currently holds twenty-one specialized documentation centers. In fact, the network rallies forces to facilitate access to relevant information, and promotes quality training for network members.

The information in the field of health is sizeable and applicants come from different professional backgrounds (schools, colleges, universities, social workers, medical and paramedical, government, etc.). Unfortunately the public does not know where to send its requests and questions in the field of health promotion. The idea of a Health Promotion Documentation Network in Brussels was born from the will to bring together documentation centers of the Brussels Region and to set up a system of information sharing, dissemination of knowledge and exchange of documentation. Beyond simple a place of exchange between professionals, the network's purpose is to improve the provision of information and offer users the necessary guidance and support in their searches. Network members meet to develop projects, share information, exchange experiences and improve the quality of information retrieval service.

Exploring different professional backgrounds and comparing methods of work can stimulate critical thinking and progress to independent reasoning and reinforce collaborative relationships. This collaboration is valuable in several ways: it allows members to perform their duties with maximum efficiency, it enables direct access to information from other associated resource centers and helps to avoid duplicates. Over the years, the network acquired experience and technical know-how, and searched for ways to restructure itself. It is now managed by a coordinating committee, composed of three volunteer members, and has adopted a charter which confirms the rules of operation and participation for members. The charter ensures membership and participation in the network activities and the respect of the principles behind it. It should also allow new members to gradually enter as actors in an open-remaining process of thought and work. For the sake of sharing and exchanging information, the network organizes for its members information sessions and trainings related to document management in the broad sense (copyrights, creation and management of a website, introduction to various information library systems, etc..

The RBD Santé also maintains a directory providing information about the resource center partners. It presents each center, the range of services, document types available, opening hours and terms of use. This directory is free to the public and people working in the field of health. It is also possible to contact specific network partners, for requests for documentation. An updated edition of the directory has just been published in September 2011 and is available, in paper or digital format. The network has platform on a website that supports the exchange of information which is also accessible to the public. This opening allows everyone to get to know the members, to visit their websites, to be aware of the network activities and to take part in it (http://www.rbdsante.be, website in French language).

The proliferation of digital resources and the need to ensure, for all, better access to reliable background information and personal assistance, will prompt the network to further diversify its activities to meet the needs of its members and users, whose professional activities are related to different evolving areas of health. The future developments of the network will largely depend on the real cooperation of its members and the financial means to carry out some projects.

Current Members List

• ANAHM/AFrAHM (Maximilien Lejeune, Michel Joris)
• APEDAF (Michel Joris)
• CDCS-CMDC (Stephanie Wolbeek)
• CEDIF-FLCPF (Claudine Cueppens)
• CDSB / CLPS Bruxelles (Mourad Benmerzouk)
• Centre Info-Démences IDEM (Lydia Lassaux)
• CPMS / PSE – COCOF (Michèle Philipp)
• CRIOC – OIVO (Réjane Dethise)
• Cultures&Santé (Xhemile Buzaku)
• Entr’Âges (Pascale Reman)
• Euridis / Parthages (Anne Denhaene)
• FARES / Prévention des Allergies (Samuel Piret)
• Fil d’Ariane (Jean Houyoux)
• Infor-Drogues (Caroline Godet, Joëlle Roelandts)
• La Médiathèque (Christel Depierreux)
• Ligue Francophone Belge contre l’Epilepsie (Gisèle Motheu)
• Observatoire du sida et des sexualités (Delphine Metten)
• PIPSa (Maria Sugero)
• Prospective Jeunesse (Danielle Dombret)
• Psycendoc (Ariane Coppens)
• RESOdoc (Yvette Gossiaux)

Introduction

The Asociación Española de Documentación e Información (SEDIC) is a nonprofit professional association founded in 1975 to promote training and exchange of experiences amongst librarians and information specialists in Spain. SEDIC also actively defends and represents the interests of this professional community in submissions to Government departments, the European Union and other international institutions.

Our association is organised into technical working groups, the oldest being the Health Sciences Working Group (HSWG), which was formed in 1997 to promote the activities of health sciences information specialists and also to support and give continuity to the Jornadas Bibliosalud, the biennial Spanish conference on information and documentation in the health sciences.

Since October 2006 new members have joined the HSWG and the members are working together to expand the group’s horizons and to better adapt to our changing social and professional context.

Objectives

In 2007 the HSWG defined its main purpose as the provision of support for the career development and progress of health sciences information specialists in their different work areas. Secondary objectives are the following:

• To facilitate cooperation, information sharing and exchange of experiences among members of the profession.
• To improve working skills and to adapt them to new technological environments.
• To standardize the different types of professional profiles and their work environments.
• To promote emerging work areas (Open Access, digitalization, etc.) in the health information field.
• To create channels and forums for communication and information dissemination.

Methodology

The HSWG conducts an annual review of the state of the information specialist’s profession, and develops a strategic plan with several action lines. Each of these action lines is led a group member, and these subgroups define the actions and activities to be carried out each year. At the end of the year the HSWG as a whole evaluates the actions taken, and makes recommendations for their further development and improvement as required, and also defines new goals for the next year. 

Results

The implementation of the HSWG annual strategic plans has resulted in the following action lines and their corresponding activities:

2007. Two action lines were enacted. The first set up a National Workshop to exchange technical information and share experiences among the members of our professional community, and the second was aimed at establishing standards for hospital health science libraries. The result was the celebration of the 1º Jornada técnica de Bibliotecas de ciencias de la salud en el siglo XXI: electrónicas, digitales, virtuales e híbridas (1st Workshop on Health Sciences Libraries in the XXI century: electronic, digital, virtual and hybrid).

2008. The first two action lines were continued and two more were added, one for the creation of free training workshops and other for the implentation of learning resources centres (Centros de Recursos para el Aprendizaje y la Investigación; CRAI). The result was the celebration of the 2º Jornada técnica de Bibliotecas de ciencias de la salud en el siglo XXI: electrónicas, digitales, virtuales e híbridas (2nd Workshop on Health Sciences Libraries in the XXI century: electronic, digital, virtual and hybrid) and workshops on “Integration of the Learning Resources Centre Model in Health Sciences Libraries”, “Intellectual Property Rights in the Health Sector”, and “Creative Commons in Health Sciences”.

2009: Established action lines were maintained, and a new one was started to update the information on the web of the HSWG and to write specific posts on the SEDIC blog. As a result workshops were held on “Web 2.0 Tools in Science Health Journals”, “Corporate Communication Web 2.0 Strategies in the Health Sector”, “Social Relationships in Health Sciences Libraries: Relations with Professionals and Users”, and a number of blogposts about activities in our field.

2010: All action lines were maintained except the learning resources centres (CRAIs) study, which was replaced by a new action line studying information literacy in health sciences. Active action lines this year led to the following workshops: three editions of the workshop “How to Publish in Scientific Information and Documentation Journals”, two editions of the course “Emotional Intelligence for Professionals in the Health Sciences”, one edition of the course “Netvibe Development for the Integration of Information in the Health Sciences: the Medical Information Library and Knowledge (MILK) Project” and one edition of the workshop “Information Literacy in the Health Sciences”.

2011: Established action lines were maintained, and a Twitter account was opened to facilitate and dynamize communication between professionals in our field. Related to this, three courses were organized: “Internal and External Impact of the Implementation of Quality Control Processes in Libraries and Information Centres”, “Web 2.0 Managers: Management of Personal References in the Web 2.0 Environment” and “Holding Effective Meetings with Multidisciplinary Groups in the Health Sciences”.

The results are shown in the poster using Ishikawa Diagrams that reflect the cause-effect relationship of each research area and the related activities.

Conclusions

The results of the HSWG’s activities show that the creation of a strategic plan with annual action lines provides a working mechanism for helping workers in our field meet current needs and adapt to changing professional and technological environments.

Through the continued search for topics of interest and the creation of opportunities for knowledge exchange, our Health Sciences Working Group has become an important resource for health information specialists in Spain. Furthermore, our group has established itself as the major working group within the SEDIC, allowing information professionals in the health sciences to maintain a high profile in our professional community.

Introduction

Health information without frontiers, this year’s conference motto, inspired us to take a closer look at our own partnership programme. SMH (Section for Medicine and Health of the Norwegian Library Association) has for a long time been involved in international cooperation with the focus on our neighbouring countries around the Baltic Sea.
The overall objective of this particular partnership programme is to enhance and develop library and information services to healthcare personnel through strengthening and improving professional knowledge among librarians in the medical and health sciences. The librarians’ professional development and their improvement of the English language are given priority.  
The programme is built on experience achieved during the Nordic-Baltic health libraries programme 1994-2004.
Continuing education courses, study tours and participation in EAHIL conferences have been the main activities. The study tours and conference participations have been for one to four persons at a time.

Questions/Objectives

One of our goals is to make this project sustainable so that our Russian partners themselves can take more responsibility for future courses.

English as the only language for the courses proved to be a bit too ambitious, and in the beginning, we provided translations into Russian. We wanted to find out if the participants felt their knowledge of English had improved over the years.

International cooperation is a challenge and requires commitment, time and money. What are our experiences so far? Do we have an equal partnership or is it more a “development aid programme”?
The enthusiasm shown by all the involved parties has been an important motivation and condition for the project. However, we feel that there is some lack of progress in our partnership. Good communication and mutual trust is very important, but language problems and cultural differences may have caused confusion now and then. Do we know that the "Transfer of Knowledge" programme is relevant to our colleagues in Russia? Do they honestly tell us about their needs, or do they just accept what we propose?
Until now, the project has been fully funded by different Norwegian institutions, such as the Norwegian Barents Secretariat, SMH and the University of Oslo. Russia is a wealthy country. Do the libraries benefit from this wealth?

Method

We e-mailed a short questionnaire about the partnership to 35 of the participants. The sample chosen was not random.  We chose among the most consistent participants.

In a cover letter, we explained the need to evaluate the programme and urged them to respond in order to keep the programme going. We also encouraged them to forward to names we might have missed. The deadline was two weeks, extended to three after a reminder.

We used the free version of the online survey tool SurveyMonkey that allows max 10 questions. The idea was to keep it short and simple. The responses would be anonymous. The questions were made by reviewing our objectives for the cooperation, including applications for financial support from various Norwegian institutions.

Most of the questions had a 5-point rating scale with the opportunity to give comments.

A similar survey was also distributed to 13 of the non-Russian lecturers and facilitators in order to see if the experiences matched those of the participants.

Results

From the 35 participants in Russia, 12 completed the survey (34%)

The 10 questions to the participants:

1. Has your participation in TOK been useful for your daily work and has it increased your competence in librarianship?
   Response: Useful to very useful
2. If you answered positively to question no. 1, have you shared your new knowledge with those of your colleagues who did not participate?
   Response: Some ( not much)sharing
3. Have you widened your professional network through participating in TOK?
   Response: Only 1 had not widened her network one way or another
4. Have you improved your knowledge of English through your participation in TOK?
   Response: From very little to very much
5. Are there any local sources of funding for courses and professional development that you can apply to? Can you give some examples of courses you have attended?
   Response: 3 yes, 4 no, 5 don’t know. 3 have given examples of other courses they attended
6. If you were going to arrange a course yourself, what would you choose?
   Response: In addition to what we suggested: Teaching different groups (students, post-graduates etc), psychology of teaching, web 3.0, fundraising and communication with state government
7. Would you have participated in TOK if your institution had to pay a fee?
   Response: Most did not know
8. Web 2.0: Have you used anything of what you have learnt in your job? Do you have any examples?
   Response: Most have not used, two have done a lot. One gave an example
9. TOK: Do all the involved parties learn from each other? Is it a mutual cooperation?
   Response: More or less
10. 10.   Praise and criticism: What has been good and what could have been done better?
    Response: Overall - very good.  – “A good translator into Russian is necessary”.

From the 13 lecturers, 8 completed (61 %). The number of questions was halved. Primarily we would like to find out how the lecturers, from outside Russia, experienced this partnership programme.

The lecturer respondents were more positive in all respects. They also gave more comments on both the professional as well as the social side of the partnership.

Discussion

It was very satisfying to see that all respondents found project useful. The low response rate from the participants however was a disappointment.  Due to the low rate the sample is hardly representative and we must be cautious in interpreting findings.

The low response rate may be due to various reasons: Have all received the e-mail?  Low motivation to respond, ambivalence or politeness, language limitations, other library traditions.

To answer our question in the title: Yes, the partnership is asymmetrical as long as one partner provides lecturers and money.  We have attended a couple of conferences in Norway dealing with experiences in cooperating with Russia – not politically, but from people to people - both with Norwegian and Russian participants. Most of the experiences are similar; as long as a Norwegian institution funds the project there is an interest. This diminishes when trying to make the partnership more equal.

It takes time to build relationships, and to be successful and sustainable there must be a two way process.

The motivation for continuing the cooperation has always been strong among the “Transfer of Knowledge” organizers.  It has been a great pleasure meeting colleagues from different places, as both teachers and participants, and a good friendship has developed among us.
However, can we assume that the motivation will remain if the so-called “cooperation” continues to be unequal? It becomes more and more difficult to get full economic support without contribution from the partner.  Will other types of international cooperation emerge?