School Of Health And Related Research Research Articles

Laying down the tracks for impactful research communications

Andy is an Information Specialist at The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at The University of Sheffield. He writes, teaches and delivers talks and training about research communications (including podcasting, blogging, social media, video/animation, infographics), digital academia, open research, web and information science and altmetrics: in particular, their application for research, teaching, learning, knowledge exchange and collaboration. Andy hosts two online courses for UKeiG on communicating research using a mixture of digital tools.

The ScHARR LMIC filter: Adapting a low- and middle-income countries geographic search filter to identify studies on preterm birth prevention and management.

Search filters are used to find evidence on specific subjects. Performance of filters can be varied and may need adapting to meet the needs of research topics. There are limited geographic search filters available, and only one pertaining to low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). When searching for literature on preterm birth prevention and management in LMICs for a research project at the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), we made use of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) LMIC geographic search filter for the databases; Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library. During screening following a broad scoping search in Ovid MEDLINE, it was found that the EPOC LMIC filter did not identify a relevant study. Adaptations were made to the LMIC geographic search filter to maximise retrieval and identify the missing study. Institution was included as a search field, and the search terms high burden or countdown countries were added. The filter was translated for the databases; Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid PsycINFO, and CINAHL via EBSCO. The adapted ScHARR LMIC filter is a non‐validated 1st generation filter which increases the sensitivity of the EPOC LMIC search filter. Validating the filter would confirm its retrieval performance and benefit information professionals, researchers, and health professionals. We recommend that the ScHARR LMIC filter is used to improve sensitivity of the Cochrane EPOC LMIC filter and reduce the risk of missing relevant studies.

Flipped learning in the context of postgraduate public health higher education: a qualitative study involving students and their tutors

In higher education institutions, there is a growing popularity of the use of flipped learning (FL) pedagogy to enhance the learning experience of students. At the undergraduate level, there is increasing evidence to demonstrate the potential benefits of this teaching and learning approach. However, at the level of the postgraduate education, evidence is limited on potential impact of FL on students’ learning experience. We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews and focus groups involving postgraduate students and tutors to explore their perspectives of FL. Campus-based students pursuing the masters of public health (MPH) course, and their tutors at the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, UK were sampled to participate in the study. Tutors generally demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of the concept of FL and its application, although different tutors use different terms to describe FL. Motivations for the use of FL among tutors were identified as: decision informed by available evidence; curriculum design suited for FL; knowledge/expertise acquired through participating in an online FL short course; advise from colleagues and perception of how higher education students should be learning. Students’ views about FL suitability for their courses were generally positive, with only a few students showing a dislike of this teaching and learning method. Our study results show that tutors and postgraduate students in public health higher education place high value on FL pedagogy, and reported positive experiences of their encounter with the FL pedagogy. The results are encouraging and suggest that higher education institutions running postgraduate masters’ degree courses, particularly public health, could consider adopting and using FL approach to enhance the learning experiences of their students.

Vedolizumab for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease After Prior Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of vedolizumab (Takeda UK) to submit evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of vedolizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe, active Crohn's disease. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) and produced a critical review of the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The GEMINIII andIII trials formed the main supporting evidence for the intervention. Both studies were phaseIII, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab. They included patients who were naïve to tumour necrosis factor alpha antagonist (anti-TNF-α) therapy and patients who had an inadequate response to, loss of response to or intolerance of immunomodulators or anti-TNF-α agents. GEMINIII was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab as an induction treatment (dosing at weeks 0 and2, with assessment at week6) and maintenance treatment (during weeks6-52). In contrast, GEMINIIII was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab as an induction treatment only, with doses at weeks 0, 2 and6, and assessment at weeks 6 and10. In the absence of any direct head-to-head, randomised, controlled trials comparing vedolizumab with other relevant biologic therapies (adalimumab and infliximab) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease, the company conducted a network meta-analysis, which compared vedolizumab, adalimumab, infliximab and placebo for the outcomes of clinical response, enhanced clinical response, clinical remission and discontinuation due to adverse events. The company model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for vedolizumab compared with the standard of care (consisting of 5-aminosalicylic acids, corticosteroids and immunosuppressants) to be £21,620 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained within the anti-TNF-α-failure population (which included a confidential patient access scheme for vedolizumab). The ICERs were above £30,000 per QALY gained for the mixed intention-to-treat population (including both anti-TNF-α-naïve and anti-TNF-α-failure populations) and in patients who were anti-TNF-α naïve only. The ERG identified a number of limitations that were believed to limit the robustness of the results presented by the company. These limitations could not be addressed by the ERG without major restructuring of the economic model. Therefore, the ERG concluded that the results from the company's model needed to be interpreted with caution and that it was unclear whether the ICERs would increase or decrease following amendment of the identified structural issues.

Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir for Treating Chronic Hepatitis C: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal-An Evidence Review Group Perspective.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Gilead, the company manufacturing ledipasvir-sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LDV/SOF for treating chronic hepatitis C. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) Technology Assessment Group was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company's submission (CS), the ERG review and the subsequent decision of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of LDV/SOF based upon the CS. The clinical effectiveness data for LDV/SOF were taken from ten trials: three phase III trials and seven phase II trials. Trials compared different durations of LDV/SOF, with and without ribavirin (RBV). There were no head-to-head trials comparing LDV/SOF with any comparator listed in the NICE scope. Data from the trials were mostly from populations with genotype 1 (GT1) disease, although some limited data were available for populations with genotypes 3 and 4. For GT1 treatment-naïve patients, sustained viral response for 12weeks (SVR12) rates for LDV/SOF ranged from 93.1 to 99.4% for subgroups of patients with non-cirrhotic disease, whilst SVR rates of 94.1 to 100% were reported for subgroups of patients with compensated cirrhosis. For GT1 treatment-experienced patients, SVR12 rates ranging from 95.4 to 100% were reported for subgroups of non-cirrhotic patients, and SVR rates ranging from 81.8 to 100% were reported within subgroups of patients with compensated cirrhosis. Comparator data were not searched systematically as part of the submission, but were based on the company's previous NICE submission of sofosbuvir, with additional targeted searches. The ERG's critical appraisal of the company's economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns. The ERG's base case analyses suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for LDV/SOF (+RBV) are dependent on (a) treatment durations, (b) whether patients have been previously treated and (c) whether patients have liver cirrhosis or not. The AC concluded that it was appropriate to use the approach taken in the ERG's exploratory analyses, in line with the marketing authorisation, which considered people with and without cirrhosis separately, and estimated the cost effectiveness for each recommended treatment duration of LDV/SOF.

Development, implementation, and assessment of a pilot workplace intervention to reduce sitting among staff in a UK university department

BackgroundTime spent being sedentary is linked with poor health, independent of physical activity levels. Sitting in the workplace substantially contributes to sedentary time, but research assessing low-cost interventions aimed at reducing sitting in the workplace is scarce. Existing evidence supports the use of multimodal interventions developed using participative approaches. This study aimed to develop, implement, and assess a multimodal, participative, low-cost intervention intended to reduce workplace sitting. MethodsThe intervention, Sit Less ScHARR!, was developed with a focus group of 11 staff from the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) in which participative approaches and brainstorming techniques were used. Main components of the intervention included posters and prompts or emails suggesting ways to sit less, use of social media, and management support. All staff (n=317) were invited to take part, of whom 17 participated in all aspects of the assessment, completing 7 day preintervention and postintervention daily logs that recorded time spent sitting. Sit Less ScHARR! was delivered over 4 weeks from July 7 to Aug 3, 2014. Paired t tests were done to determine preintervention and postintervention differences in daily workplace sitting time, although this pilot study aimed to determine an overall magnitude of effect only and was not powered to detect a specific effect size. Qualitative survey data about feasibility and acceptability of the intervention were collected and thematically analysed. The study was approved by the ScHARR Ethics Committee. Focus group participants provided informed consent; for other participants, informed consent was implied by completion of daily logs. FindingsMean baseline sitting time of 440 min/workday was reported with a mean reduction of 26 min/workday post intervention (n=17, 95% CI −2 to 53, p=0·067). Sit Less ScHARR! was well received and perceived to be both acceptable and feasible. Management support was a highlighted strength, whereas meetings where participants were encouraged to walk or stand received mixed feedback. InterpretationThis small pilot study is encouraging with respect to potential outcomes and feasibility of multimodal interventions to reduce sitting in the workplace in UK settings. Assessment of this study provides useful information to support the use of participatory approaches during intervention development and potential for more sustainable low-cost interventions. The findings might not be generalisable since this study was carried out within a health-related academic setting. FundingNone.

What is the current state of practitioner research? The 2013 LIRG Research Scan

This paper reports on a scoping review commissioned as a research scan by the CILIP Library and Information Research Group (LIRG) and undertaken by a small research team at the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield. Firstly the recent literature (2010-2012) on LIS practitioner-focused research was identified and briefly reviewed. This was supplemented by an entities scan; that is, a brief scan of key outputs (e.g. newsletters, discussion lists, etcetera) produced by CILIP specialist interest groups (SIGS). The team identified a total of 142 relevant papers. These were coded and characterised against relevant frameworks. A brief selection of items in each category was reviewed. The paper concludes by suggesting priorities to improve practitioner research at practitioner, organisational and strategic level. Particular attention was focused on the stimulation of collaborative “hive” research activities and on monitoring existing good practice from other groups, associations and countries.

Learn something new in 20 minutes: Bite Size sessions to support research and teaching

The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at The University of Sheffield run an innovative series of informal 20-minute Bite Size sessions to help staff and students teach, research, collaborate and communicate more effectively. The sessions have two clear strands: one focused on teaching and the other on research. The remit is not to teach people how to use something in their work or study, but to let them know why they should use it and how they can employ it. By introducing participants to the possibilities and how they can apply ideas and technologies in their work and study in an enthusiastic manner, it is possible to send them away with at least the intention to explore and experiment. The evidence shows that this organic approach is working--staff and students are starting to use many of the tools that Bite Size has covered. Any kind of widespread change within organisations can be hard to deliver, but by bringing champions on your side and delivering sessions in a convenient, informal and timely manner; good practice and ideas can spread naturally.

Trabectedin for the Treatment of Advanced Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of trabectedin (PharmaMar) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (aMSTS), as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology contained within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. The main evidence was derived from a single phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma only, in which the licensed dose of trabectedin was compared with a different dose of trabectedin. Additional data were also presented from three uncontrolled phase II trials. Supplementary studies were used to represent best supportive care (BSC). The median overall survival (OS) was 13.9months for the licensed dose of trabectedin in the main randomized controlled trial (RCT) and ranged from 9.2months to 12.8months in the other studies included. Supplementary studies supplied by the manufacturer, and assumed to represent BSC, had median OS of 5.9-6.6months. The progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 6months for trabectedin were 35.5% in the main RCT and 24.4-29% in the other studies included. The PFS rates at 6months were 8-14% for BSC. In the manufacturer's original submission to NICE, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of trabectedin compared with BSC was approximately £44,000 per QALY gained. After amendment of errors identified by the ERG, the ICER reported by the manufacturer increased to approximately £61,000. The ERG concluded that, despite clarifications from the manufacturer and the revisions made to the model, there was still considerable uncertainty in the ICER. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) gave a negative initial recommendation, although indicated that trabectedin in aMSTS met the end-of-life criteria. Subsequently, the manufacturer submitted a patient access scheme (PAS) where any cycles beyond the fifth were provided at no cost by the manufacturer. This improved the ICER to approximately £34,000 per QALY gained. The AC gave a positive recommendation, subject to the implementation of the PAS.

Bivalirudin for the Treatment of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (The Medicines Company) of bivalirudin to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness within its licensed indication for the treatment of adults with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) intended for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), as part of NICE's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a review of the evidence within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. This article describes the manufacturer's submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The main evidence was derived from one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of STEMI patients intended for PPCI, comparing bivalirudin with unfractionated heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). Bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in cardiac mortality at 30days (p=0.03) and at 1-year follow-up (p=0.005), and a significant reduction in major bleeding at 30days (p<0.001) and 1year (p<0.0001), compared with heparin plus GPI. Stent thrombosis up to 24 hours following PPCI was significantly (p<0.001) more common with bivalirudin. However, there was no significant treatment effect for stent thrombosis from 1 to 30days (p=0.28), or at 1-year follow-up (p=0.53). There were no significant treatment group differences at 30days and at 1year in stroke (p=0.68 and p=0.99, respectively), in myocardial infarction [MI] (p=0.90 and p=0.22, respectively), or in the need for the revascularization of the target vessel for ischaemia (p=0.18 and p=0.12, respectively). There were two decision-analytic models: the base-case scenario used 1-year follow-up data from the RCT; and a sensitivity analysis used 3-year follow-up data. Resource use was primarily drawn from this RCT. Health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) estimates were drawn from a UK cohort study. Both models evaluated the incremental costs and outcomes of bivalirudin compared with heparin plus GPI for patients with STEMI intended for PPCI. The analysis adopted a UK NHS perspective over a lifetime horizon. Unit costs were based on year 2009-2010 prices. The model adopted a decision-tree structure to reflect initial events for the initial period (stroke, repeat MI, minor/major bleeding events, repeat revascularization and death) and a two-state Markov component to simulate longer-term survival. The economic analysis suggested that bivalirudin is expected to dominate the heparin plus GPI strategy. This finding was consistent across the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and the vast majority of deterministic sensitivity analyses undertaken. Three exceptions to this finding were observed for the following sensitivity analyses: (1) the exclusive use of eptifibatide as the GPI (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]=£1,764); (2) the combination of 100% eptifibatide use, 100% radial arterial access and no differential length between strategies for initial hospital stay (ICER=£4,106); and (3) a longer length of ward stay (increase of 0.33days) for the initial hospitalization (ICER=£415). The Appraisal Committee (AC) gave a positive recommendation for bivalirudin for the treatment of adults with STEMI undergoing PPCI.

Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of bevacizumab (Roche Products) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology provided within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from a phase III, multicentre, multinational, two-arm, randomized, open-label study with the primary objective of confirming the non-inferiority of oxaliplatin plus capecitabine (XELOX) compared with oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFOX-4) in adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRC who had not previously been treated. The ERG considered that the NO16966 trial was of reasonable methodological quality and demonstrated a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival when bevacizumab is added to either XELOX or FOLFOX-4. The ERG considered that the size of the actual treatment effect of bevacizumab was uncertain due to trial design limitations, imbalance of a known prognostic factor, relatively short treatment duration compared with that allowed within the trial protocol, and interpretation of the statistical analyses. The manufacturer's submission included a de novo economic evaluation using a cost-effectiveness model built in Microsoft® Excel. The ERG believed that the modelling structure employed was appropriate but highlighted several areas of uncertainty that had the potential to have a significant impact on the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The areas of uncertainty identified by the ERG included whether chemotherapy would be administered continuously or intermittently, patient access scheme (PAS) costs and uptake, survival that was dependent on the statistical analyses used, and the likely duration of continued treatment with bevacizumab after cessation of oxaliplatin and the efficacy associated with continuation. The STA described here highlighted the challenges in appraising interventions with a complex PAS. Based on the analyses that include a discount to the list price of oxaliplatin, the ERG concluded that the ICERs for the addition of bevacizumab to XELOX or FOLFOX were both over £50 000. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin and either 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid or capecitabine (i.e. FOLFOX or XELOX) was not recommended for the treatment of mCRC.

What type of leader am I?: a training needs analysis of health library and information managers

Leadership is a necessary facet of professional practice for health library and information managers (HLIMs). Several training needs analyses (TNA) in the health library and information services field have been conducted in recent years, all identifying a need for professional development in leadership skills. However, these previous TNAs have not focused on specific elements of leadership skills required by health library and information managers. The National Library for Health (NLH) commissioned the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield to conduct a TNA where HLIMs assess their current leadership skills and identify any future development needs in this area. The results would inform a programme of influencing skills workshops. HLIMs in the UK were invited to complete a self-assessment online questionnaire. The questionnaire utilised items from Manning and Robertson's Influencing Skills Style Profile (ISSP). This allowed the results to be characterised by influencing 'style'. HLIMs considered themselves to have strengths in the leadership areas of influencing, negotiating, managing change and delivering presentations to decision-makers. They identified significant development needs in communicating with stakeholders, conflict resolution, using body language and being assertive. Most HLIMs demonstrated two collaborative styles identified by the ISSP, namely strategic collaborator and opportunistic collaborator. In difficult times, HLIMs may need to adapt to more of an 'opportunistic-battler' influencing style. It is important that HLIMs not only assess their own leadership skills but also that they take opportunities to employ 360(°) feedback, comprising assessment from subordinates, peers and supervisors.

Using Web 2.0 Tools to Create Customized Research Portals

The Information Resources team within the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield has a long-standing interest in the application of new and emerging Web 2.0 technologies for research, learning, and teaching. In early 2008, members of the group began to discuss the development of customized web portals, also referred to as personal start pages, to aggregate various streams of specialist information relevant to researchers within the School and in the wider National Health Service (NHS) research community. This paper documents the background to the portals, their development, and reflects on the challenges and issues the team encountered.

“Surely there must be more evidence . !” Reviewing literature to support the development of evidence-based public health guidance by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness

Background and ObjectivesAs well as guidance on clinical interventions, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness (NICE) produces evidence-based public health guidance. The aim of this study was to...

Authors' reply

Diabetic MedicineVolume 23, Issue 11 p. 1268-1270 Authors’ reply N. Forouhi, N. Forouhi MRC Epidemiology Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Wort's Causeway, Cambridge, Yorkshire and Humber Public Health Observatory, Alcuin Research and Resource Centre, The University of York, York,Search for more papers by this authorE. Goyder, E. Goyder School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, andSearch for more papers by this authorD. Merrick, D. Merrick MRC Epidemiology Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Wort's Causeway, Cambridge, Yorkshire and Humber Public Health Observatory, Alcuin Research and Resource Centre, The University of York, York,Search for more papers by this authorS. Wild, S. Wild Public Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKSearch for more papers by this authorB. Ferguson, B. Ferguson MRC Epidemiology Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Wort's Causeway, Cambridge, Yorkshire and Humber Public Health Observatory, Alcuin Research and Resource Centre, The University of York, York,Search for more papers by this author N. Forouhi, N. Forouhi MRC Epidemiology Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Wort's Causeway, Cambridge, Yorkshire and Humber Public Health Observatory, Alcuin Research and Resource Centre, The University of York, York,Search for more papers by this authorE. Goyder, E. Goyder School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, andSearch for more papers by this authorD. Merrick, D. Merrick MRC Epidemiology Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Wort's Causeway, Cambridge, Yorkshire and Humber Public Health Observatory, Alcuin Research and Resource Centre, The University of York, York,Search for more papers by this authorS. Wild, S. Wild Public Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKSearch for more papers by this authorB. Ferguson, B. Ferguson MRC Epidemiology Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Wort's Causeway, Cambridge, Yorkshire and Humber Public Health Observatory, Alcuin Research and Resource Centre, The University of York, York,Search for more papers by this author First published: 18 October 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.1938_2.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume23, Issue11November 2006Pages 1268-1270 RelatedInformation

Finding current best evidence: putting the 4Ss into searching.

Diabetic MedicineVolume 19, Issue s5 p. 1-3 Finding current best evidence: putting the 4Ss into searching A. Booth, A. Booth School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, UKSearch for more papers by this author A. Booth, A. Booth School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 06 September 2002 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-5491.19.s5.2.xCitations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume19, Issues5September 2002Pages 1-3 RelatedInformation

Column Editors

Health Information & Libraries JournalVolume 18, Issue 4 p. 238-240 Free Access Column Editors Andrew Booth, Andrew Booth School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of SheffieldSearch for more papers by this author Andrew Booth, Andrew Booth School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of SheffieldSearch for more papers by this author First published: 18 July 2008 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00110.x-i1Citations: 2AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume18, Issue4December 2001Pages 238-240 RelatedInformation

Book Review

A. Booth & G. Walton, Managing knowledge in health services ( eds ). London: Library Association Publishing , 2000 . ISBN 1-85604-321-5 . 357 pp., £45.00 (£36 to LA members) . Many readers will be familiar with Michael Carmel's ‘Health Care Librarianship and Information Work’,1 which since 1995 has been the standard British textbook on the subject. With the enormous changes in health services—and consequently in the provision of health care information—that have taken place since then, Andrew Booth and Graham Walton have set out, aided by an authoritative team of contributors, to assemble a book that reflects these changes and offers library and information service (LIS) professionals guidance in how to develop their roles accordingly. The resulting work has a clear and logical structure, with three main sections. Part 1 is an overview of health services, mapping the health care landscape and the key features of health information within it. It identifies the latter as being information users, libraries, information providers, and consumer health information, devoting a chapter to each in turn. Where possible it adopts a global perspective, while relying heavily on examples drawn from UK practice. Parts 2 and 3 have a more practical ‘how to do it’ approach. Part 2 examines health information resources in greater detail, discussing the principles underpinning the organization and management of these resources and offering well-researched advice on how to turn principles into practice. Part 3 concentrates on the skills needed to make effective use of the knowledge base of health information. Here, more than anywhere else, the reader becomes aware of the greatest change from the world described by Carmel in 1995: then, evidence-based health care had yet to make a significant impact on LIS, receiving only two pages of coverage in his introduction. Now, it has become a central tenet of health care practice: as a result it places effective health knowledge management at the heart of things and dominates our present-day thinking. It is no coincidence that more than half the chapters have been written by staff of the Information Resources Section in the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at Sheffield University, a unit that has been at the forefront of the move towards better evidence-based health information practices. The book bears the hallmark of strong editorial guidance. Each chapter follows a standard format that includes an introduction, a conclusion and helpful key points, and case studies are employed to good effect throughout. All the contributions rely heavily on a thorough review of the literature, with references that are gathered into a 50-page bibliography. If there is a weakness, it lies in the extensive references to Website addresses throughout the book. Many readers will already be familiar with the ephemeral nature of Websites that disappear (or at least change without an adequate redirection facility), and while this is ultimately a criticism of those who run the Websites rather than those seeking to use them, this feature of the book will be most vulnerable to rapid obsolescence. A publisher's claim that a book is essential reading is usually to be taken with a large pinch of salt. This book is an exception: the subject it covers, the approach it adopts, and the quality of the individual contributions, together enable it to justify that much-abused claim. It is exemplary in its presentation of evidence-based information practice. If you have or aspire to managerial responsibility for health service information, buy it, read it, and apply its lessons.

Patient satisfaction in telemedicine

Recent improvements in technology and telecommunications have resulted in renewed interest in telemedicine [1]. The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) Executive has recently published an ‘Information for Health’ strategy which states that ‘telemedicine and telecare will undoubtedly come to the fore as a way of providing services in the future. They have a key role to play in the Government’s plans to modernize the NHS’ [2]. Within the current climate, the future success of telemedicine will depend on patient and provider acceptance of such technologies. It is, therefore, imperative that the views and experiences of the users and providers of healthcare services are sought to enable problems to be resolved and issues addressed before telemedicine is fully implemented: ‘Information about the patients’ experiences can be an important lever for change, both highlighting where, and what sort of quality improvements are needed’ [3]. This paper provides an overview of telemedicine and patient satisfaction and considers the satisfaction studies to date. It finally discusses some of the problems in assessing patient satisfaction within telemedicine and how future studies may be improved in light of the findings. It is based upon work that is presently being carried out at the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield as part of a Randomized Controlled Trial of telemedicine in dermatology, funded by the NHS Executive Research and Development Programme.