Mediated Searching: A Code of Practice May 2018

MEDIATED SEARCHING:
A Code of Practice

May 2018

Prepared by:

2014-2018 Mediated Search Working Group:

Susan Baer

Ashley Farrell

Pat Lee

Jacqueline MacDonald

Danielle Rabb

Brooke Ballantyne Scott

Marcus Vaska

This Code of Practice is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 4.0,  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ 

Preface

The Standards Working Group is an adhoc committee of librarians across Canada interested in developing a standard for literature searching in the health sciences.  The inaugural meeting, where ideas were discussed along with the need to formulate a plan, occurred in June 2014. The term “standards” was used at the time, however after four years of reading and research, the concept has evolved into a Code of Practice.

A wealth of literature exists with regards to searching to support systematic reviews; in fact, several medical and related organizations provide guidance in how to participate in systematic review searching.  However, in comparison, there is very little written about standards for literature searching.  Opinions varied about whether it would be possible to create a standard, given that each request and search is different and unique.  When requesting searches, clinicians apply what is stated in the literature, along with their own knowledge, to develop guidelines that focus on the patient’s needs to determine the best approach to be taken.  A Code of Practice for literature searching can be a tool librarians can use for evidence-based practice in librarianship.

Our intent was to research and document what was described in the literature as well as applying our own examples and experience to the information uncovered.  Once we gathered the required information, our research process included sorting and ordering search methods within the Deming Cycle which evolved into the steps and stages that the team analyzed.  A Delphi study was used to validate the work in 2015.  The Research Ethics Board (REB) application in 2016 contained two phases to continue to elicit feedback and validate the work:  a jurisdictional review and an environmental scan of elite searchers.  While consultation with elite searchers has been conducted and evaluated by the team, the jurisdictional review has not yet been completed due to time constraints.

During the research process, it was apparent that a standard lexicon did not exist.  While there are glossaries contained in specific searching textbooks, articles, or institutional reports, there was not one readily available for the profession.  The Glossary developed includes the source and a link where applicable.  The more current definitions researched have been used unless an earlier definition provided a better illustration. The Glossary should thus be considered a living document, which will grow and undergo updates as needed.

 A Code of Practice for literature searching for librarians aligns our professional organizations with those of our clinicians.  The Code provides assurance for our clientele that the profession’s approach to supporting their work uses the same standard of care and best practice that they must apply in their own practice. It emphasizes the value placed on the library services and librarian-mediated searching within the health care system. The Code provides a basis for quality indicators or improvement, which can be used in literature search instruction within library schools.  It may lead to the development of other ‘best practices’ or standards for librarianship. 

Writing the Code is simply the first step in providing some guiding documents for the profession.  It is our hope that continued investment in the Code is undertaken to better identify issues that may be missing or include future practice as it evolves.

1      Proposed Code of Practice for Mediated Searching

This Code of Practice is a first step at bringing together and sorting the mediated search literature by:

• ·        type of search, labelled “search level” in this code, and by
•          search method, labelled “search step” in this code.

1.1    Introduction to the Code

This code identifies and defines each unique search method, labelled generally as a search step, groups these in general order within seven search stages, then considers whether the step is required in each of five search levels. 

1.1.1    Search Steps

The code identifies eighty-seven unique search methods.

Subsequent work may include determining the degree to which each step is required for each search level, i.e. “must”, “should” or “may”, and classifying steps by

•          Type of method, whether search strategies, search tactics, search operations or search moves  
•          Purpose of method, whether taken to support individual search requests or to support aspects of the search service more generally including such areas as inter-searcher communication, service handover, information referral, client awareness development, resource allocation and use, database selection, performance monitoring and service evaluation. 

1.1.2    Search Types

The code identifies five search types characterized by increasing rigour and attention to detail.

Search Level I

Definition: To bridge an information gap with a needed fact

Level I Search Example(s): What is the current best practice for Newborn Blood Spot Screening?

Source: working definition as of 2017-03, Canadian Search Standards Working Group.

Search Level II

Definition: To increase an individual's own understanding of an issue

Level II Search Example(s): What are the leading cancer research organizations, including their structure and their success?

Source: working definition as of 2017-03, Canadian Search Standards Working Group.

Search Level III

Definition: To gather content for education such as lectures, workshops, presentation (e.g. "Breast density legislation and breast cancer screening"). To support a decision to purchase a product or resource (e.g. Are mailed FIT tests an effective means to increase awareness of colorectal cancer screening?"). To inform a student assignment such as a term-paper or an essay (e.g. "What are the Current Smoking Cessation Strategies among Aboriginal Youth"?). To write an internal report or other internal document or policy (e.g. "Identify and implement a new clinical information system such as a continuing care portfolio".). To find information to apply immediately for an individual patient's care (e.g. "What is the correct position of restraints or belts for brain-injured patients"?). To inform non-clinical organizational planning (e.g. "Developing a facilitator competency framework to lead healthcare change"). To help inform the creation of patient education (e.g. "Enhancing patient engagement in chronic disease self-management").

Source: working definition as of 2017-03, Canadian Search Standards Working Group.

Search Level IV

Definition: To develop clinical guidelines (e.g. "For diagnosis, staging, treatment, and follow-up of cancer"). To inform a publication - academic or research journal or grey literature (e.g. "Combined open and endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms"). To inform research proposals (e.g. "CIHR grant application").

Source: Definition based on other 4 search level definitions & Watanabe AS, McCart G, Shimomura S, Kayser S. Systematic approach to drug information requests. American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. 1975;32(12):1282-5.

Source: working definition as of 2017-03, Canadian Search Standards Working Group.

Search Level V

Definition: To inform research to support a systematic review, meta-analysis or HTA etc. (e.g. "What are the benefits of exercise for prostate cancer survivors for a systematic review?").

Source: working definition as of 2017-03, Canadian Search Standards Working Group.

1.1.3    Search Stages

The code identifies seven stages of mediated searching.

•          Search Stage 1 – Client Engagement (20 Steps) – capturing the client’s information need.
•          Search Stage 2 - Initial Planning (18 Steps) – studying how to best meet the client’s information need by outlining or sketching out one or more “fit for purpose” approaches
•         Search Stage 3 - Scoping Search (10 Steps) – testing one or more approaches to establish the best course of action
•          Search Stage 4 - Resource Specific Search Planning (11 Steps) – selecting and planning the best approach for each source to be searched
•         Search Stage 5 – The Search (1 Step) – executing the search in each resource selected
•         Search Stage 6 - Evaluation (5 Steps) – evaluating how well the search worked in each resource
•         Search Stage 7 - Reporting (20 Steps) – recording the completed work to meet needs for service record keeping and client information needs and uses.

1.2    Recommended Steps by Search Stage and Search Level

1.2.1    Search Stage 1 – Client Engagement (20 Steps)

Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.1 Determine purpose of request, i.e. how search results will be used
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.2 Establish turnaround time, i.e. when client needs the search completed
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.3 Confirm scope and breadth of the search topic needed
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.4 Collect background information including client’s scope & breadth of subject knowledge
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.5 Secure the type of publications or sources of information needed, e.g., abstracts or full-text, review articles, conference proceedings, reports, guidelines, internal documents, data sets, benchmarks, trends, health technology assessments, economic evaluations, etc.
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.6 Secure the amount of information needed
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.7 Frame search request as one or more answerable questions and confirm with client
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.8 Identify criteria for database selection or other information sources to be searched
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.9 Select relevant databases and/or other information sources to be searched
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.10 Work with client to identify criteria for what is to be included and what is not to be included (using the NOT command)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.11 Identify what may constitute scope creep
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.12 Secure from client, key terms, concepts, any popular synonyms, acronyms and spelling variations
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.13 Secure from client, any key articles or information sources related to the request
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.14 For searches for research purposes, secure from client the research methods used in studies of interest (e.g. RCTs, interview study, etc.)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.15 For searches to support research studies, secure from client any time-related criteria for length of study or participant follow-up or to repeat the search
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.16 Confirm with client preferred format of search results, or the name of their reference management software, e.g. Refworks, Mendeley
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.17 Secure client contact info and demographics (for organizational purposes), e.g. profession, department, etc.
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.18 Assign search level to search request
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.19 Log and assign/refer each search request
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	1.20 Advise client of assigned searcher, any related costs and expected date of completion

1.2.2    Search Stage 2 - Initial Planning (18 Steps)

Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.1 Check for systematic reviews on the subject
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.2 Check for validated search strategies in systematic reviews on similar or related topics
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.3 Search for existing bibliographies on the subject
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.4 Consider a jurisdictional review or interview experts to gather more background
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.5 Identify key journals for the topic & browse their table of contents and/or conduct a hand search
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.6 Develop a plan to search the grey literature/websites
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.7 Map the concepts, e.g. reduce the research question into major concepts
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.8 Identify a term or phrase to represent each concept
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.9 Select the most specific term(s) for the most relevant concept(s)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.10 For each concept, identify synonyms, acronyms, spelling variations, broader and narrower terms
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.11 Develop concepts using suffix truncation to capture word variations
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.12 Develop concepts using a wildcard to capture word variations
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.13 Develop concepts using adjacency searching
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.14 Develop concepts using proximity searching
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.15 For each concept, link each term with OR to form a concept string
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.16 Formulate initial search query by linking each concept string using then combining these using a step-wise approach
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.17 Prepare document template/system to record search strategy and history
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	2.18 Plan search by ranking selected information sources in order, with expected best sources first

1.2.3    Search Stage 3 - Scoping Search (10 Steps)

Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	3.1 Execute initial search query to determine the size of the body of literature
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	3.2 Identify the most relevant publications and conduct a citation search
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	3.3 Identify and review the most relevant publications and review their references
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	3.4 Use pearl growing
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	3.5 Arrange search results as per client’s request, if applicable
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	3.6 Review and discuss results to date with client to clarify search request, and bridge gaps arising from initial search, noting any changes in search log.
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	3.7 Match client’s information needs and preferences with information gathering approaches and information sources
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	3.8 Confirm information sources to be searched, including databases and websites
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	3.9 Apply a text analysis tool, e.g. Yale MeSH Analyzer, to initial results to identify additional search terms
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	3.10 Create a reference set of key articles

1.2.4    Search Stage 4 - Resource Specific Search Planning (11 Steps)

Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.1 Check subject headings/index terms for most relevant results (perform for Levels I-II as needed)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.2 For each database, use the thesaurus to identify subject headings, broader and narrower terms, cross references and subheadings for each concept (perform for Levels I-II as needed)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.3 For each database/website, review search tips
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.4 For each database/website, consider whether to use limits and which limits to use
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.5 For each database/website, consider whether/where to use methodological filters to identify particular types of research studies
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.6 For each database, consider whether/where to build/adapt and use subject hedge(s) to represent complex concepts
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.7 For each database/website, review the translated search query for spelling and syntax
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.8 For each database, disable or optimize search functions, e.g. Embase’s “search broadly as possible” and Pubmed’s “auto term”
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.9 Optimize the output (test the draft search strategy against reference set of key articles and make iterative modifications until the search is optimized)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.10 For each database, identify end point (theoretical saturation)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	4.11 Select format and fields for results

1.2.5    Search Stage 5 – The Search (1 Step)

Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V

5. Execute the search systematically in each resource

1.2.6    Search Stage 6 - Evaluation (5 Steps)

Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	6.1 Review and re-evaluate search results
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	6.2 Evaluate searcher satisfaction
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	6.3 If needed, revise search query and execute search again
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	6.4 Subject search query to peer review, and modify search if needed
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	6.5 Evaluate client satisfaction

1.2.7    Search Stage 7 - Reporting (20 Steps)

Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.1 Format and export results in client's preferred format, and/or to reference management software
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.2 Synthesize results by selecting and highlighting references that appear to best meet the client's need
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.3 Record database/website selection criteria and database(s)/website(s) used
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.4 Record database(s)/website(s) used
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.5 For each database searched, specify title of database and name of database provider
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.6 For each website searched, specify name, web address (URL) and publisher
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.7 For each database/website, record date searched
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.8 For each database/website, record publication years searched
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.9 Describe any limitations or biases
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.10 Include exclusion criteria in search records
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.11 Include inclusion criteria in search records
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.12 Include limits in search records
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.13 Include study type(s) searched in search records
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.14 Document any rationale for deviation from recommended approach
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.15 For each database searched, copy and record search history
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.16 For each website, document search methods and processes
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.17 For each search, use the PRISMA Flow Diagram generator
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.18 Summarize search results in search report and log
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.19 Update search log entries, e.g. search question, search type, time spent
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V	7.20 Evaluate client satisfaction

 Acknowledgements 

Each member of the Working Group is grateful for the support for our parent institutions, past and present, for the opportunity to work on this project.  Lori Leger was an instrumental member in the early stages of work.  Her contributions are evident in the steps and stages.  Lori was unable to continue with the project.  Special recognition is needed to Amy Weisgarber from Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region (now the Saskatchewan Health Authority) who used her talents to graphically represent stages of our project in the posters created.  We would also like to thank the Dalhousie SIM search class, the Regina Qu’Appelle Research Ethics Board, and all of the researchers and librarians who took the time to provide us with feedback and new insights.