Search

Background: F1000 Workspace, Mendeley, EndNote Basic (without Web of Science), and EndNote Desktop/Online are tools that facilitate building shared libraries of references with attached PDFs for groups such as research labs, medical residents and co-authors. This evaluation compares specific functionality of these tools to help librarians match recommendations with user needs. Methods: The structured evaluation includes these metrics: sharing; access; importing citations, PDFs, and databases; duplicate removal; ability to organize and make notes; ease of installing a word plugin; styles available for bibliography references; ability to upload and track versions of a co-authored article; and product support. Results: Sharing: F1000W and EndNote offer unlimited shared ”projects” and “groups,” respectively, although whole libraries may not be shared with EndNote Basic. EndNote desktop allows syncing one library with an online account. All the references in this library can be shared from the desktop with other EndNote v.7+ users, or by sharing groups within the library via the online account. Desktop users can accept unlimited library sharing invitations. Free Mendeley accounts offer one private group with 3 members. An institutional license provides unlimited groups with 25 members. Access: F1000W and EndNote Basic are entirely web based. Mendeley and EndNote are desktop based with online interfaces. Importing: All programs have browser web importers and import files in a variety of standard formats and, with the exception of EndNote Basic, will create records from PDFs of articles with DOIs. Deduplicating: F1000W merges exact duplicates on import. All products have tools to identify and merge duplicates upon verification. Organizing in shared groups: Mendeley has shared multi-level folders and tags; other products share just folders. Notes: All products, with the exception of EndNote Basic, provide highlighting and notes within stored PDFs. Mendeley and F1000W display PDF notes in the records and notes can be directly added to the records. Citing tool: Word plugins are easy to install for all programs. F1000W has a Google Docs add-in. Styles: EndNote Basic has 21 styles, while the other programs provide hundreds. Editing styles is available via support request in F1000W, in EndNote Desktop but not in EndNote Basic, and in Mendeley for those with scripting skills. Manuscripts: F1000W has a manuscript sharing tool with version tracking. Support: Response time to support requests are shortest in F1000W. Conclusions: The poster details user needs and tool recommendations in 4 cases: medical resident, public health student, systematic review team and research lab.

F1000 Workspace (F1000W) is a relative newcomer to the reference database scene, joining the ranks of EndNote, RefWorks, Mendeley, Papers, and Zotero. In 2015, the London-based Science Navigation Group launched F1000W, the third of a suite of products originally branded as the Faculty of 1000 with the goal of “Changing the way sci-ence is communicated” [1]. The first of this trio of products, F1000 Prime, was released in 2002 to pro-vide expert recommendations about the best research articles in biology and medicine. Following in 2012, F1000 Research is an open access, open science journal that facilitates rapid publication of life sciences findings with transparent post-publication peer review.

Health care increasingly requires complicated self-care regimens that demand patients and family caregivers learn about unfamiliar topics and practices to support their recovery. Due to the prevalence of low health literacy, patient education materials must comply with health literacy standards so that all patients understand how to take care of themselves. This content analysis examines the quality and consistency of patient education materials used at a large academic medical center to inform self-care of burns, tracheostomy, and peripherally-inserted central catheters. The Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT) was used to evaluate thirteen patient education materials from inpatient, outpatient, and home health settings. PEMAT scores were associated with the presence of visual aids and document source. Consistency of materials was greatest among documents describing self-care for burns. Study methods employed may be used as a foundation for assessment of additional patient education materials.

Background: Over the last 20 years, cancer care has transitioned from long hospitalizations to short inpatient stays or outpatient settings. As patients and their family members increasingly turn to the Internet for health information, cancer hospitals have the opportunity to provide clear, credible information on their websites to cancer patients, families, and informal caregivers. Objective: Recommend improved web content and organization of caregiver information for patients and families at our local comprehensive cancer center. Methods: One librarian and two library science students conducted a cognitive walk-through to assess websites of two cancer hospitals in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Each evaluator independently performed seven tasks distributed among three different caregiver personas to evaluate the presence and accessibility of caregiver information on these cancer hospital websites.Results: Our findings indicate that these websites are not conducive to providing information for cancer caregiver support because of the following: key information is unavailable, navigation on the landing page is limited, broken links, ambiguous page titles, page titles that do not match the content of the page, and lack of contact information (phone number, email) for service access. Conclusion: Opportunities are available to improve cancer caregiver information on cancer hospital websites. Library professionals can help cancer hospitals improve caregiver information on their websites with recommendations for additional content and clearer organization. This is a way to build partnerships between library professionals and cancer hospitals.

The Diabetes Indicators and Data Sources Internet Tool (DIDIT) is an interactive Web-based resource with information on 38 diabetes indicators (e.g., diabetes-associated complications, care, lifestyle) and 12 associated data sources frequently used by state diabetes prevention and control programs. This tool is designed to strengthen the ability of states to conduct diabetes surveillance and to promote consistency in defining and tracking indicators across states. In this way, the DIDIT supports one of the 10 essential public health services: the timely and accurate assessment of public health. In addition to serving as a central repository of information on diabetes surveillance, the DIDIT also allows users to share experiences of using these indicators and data sources in their diabetes surveillance activities, data analysis, and tracking of diabetes-related objectives stated by Healthy People 2010. The DIDIT is an innovative approach to enhancing public health surveillance at the state and national levels.