Research reports: Steelman and Thomas
Academic health sciences librarians’ contributions to institutional animal care and use committees*{ Susan C. Steelman, MLIS; Sheila L. Thomas, MA(LS) See end of article for authors’ affiliations. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.014
The study gathered data about librarians’ membership in institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) and their professional activities supporting animal researchers. Libraries affiliated with medical schools that were members of the Association of American Medical Colleges were surveyed. A survey was distributed via library directors’ email discussion lists and direct email messages. Sixty surveys were completed: 35 (58%) reported that librarians performed database searches for researchers, and 22 (37%) reported that a librarian currently serves on the IACUC. The survey suggests that academic health sciences librarians provide valuable, yet underutilized, services to support animal research investigators.
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to gather descriptive information about two types of activities performed by academic health sciences librarians working at libraries affiliated with medical schools accredited by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). One activity is participating as a member of the institutional animal use and care committee (IACUC); the other is providing literature searches * The REDCapTM survey software (version 4.13.10, E2013 Vanderbilt University) used for data collection is supported by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Translational Research Institute (grant NCATS/NIH 1 UL1 RR029884). { Based on a presentation at ‘‘One Health,’’ which included MLA ’13, the 113th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; the 11th International Congress on Medical Librarianship; the 7th International Conference of Animal Health Information Specialists; and the 6th International Clinical Librarian Conference.
J Med Lib Assoc 102(3) July 2014
215
Research reports: Steelman and Thomas
and/or search consultations that support animal use protocols (AUPs) to researchers. The published literature offers very little information about these activities. Many articles concerning librarians and institutional animal research or animal welfare consist of best-practice instructions for conducting database searches [1–3]. Osinski notes that, according to anecdotal evidence, few academic librarians are either serving on IACUCs or actively promoting their services to such committees [4]. There have been occasional individual accounts, such as Chilov’s 2005 poster about activities at Columbia University Medical Center [5] and Lingle’s report of being invited to serve as the nonscientific member of the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine IACUC [6]. An IACUC is the primary oversight mechanism for animal care and use, responsible through an institutional officer for and reporting directly to regulatory and granting agencies on animal care and use matters [7]. The US Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals states that institutions or organizations supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, awards, or contracts must establish a committee to oversee their animal care program [8]. The Animal Welfare Act Regulations (AWAR), enacted in 1989 and implemented and enforced by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), mandate that research institutions maintain a committee composed of at least three members that is charged with the responsibility for ensuring that the facility is in full compliance with the act [8]. Most US institutions engaged in animal research now have a single committee that satisfies both PHS and USDA requirements. Many IACUCs consist of six to ten members; in academic institutions, the number is often larger [8]. IACUC member activities include voting on AUPs at meetings, conducting site visits, and attending educational sessions. At the authors’ institution, a librarian participates as a full committee member. The USDA Animal Care Policy Manual describes twenty policies regarding animal use. Of particular relevance to librarians is ‘‘Policy 12: Consideration of Alternatives to Painful/Distressful Procedures.’’ Policy 12 states that investigators must consider alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to animals and provide a written narrative of the methods used and sources consulted to determine the availability of alternatives. The policy also states that the USDA ‘‘continues to recommend a database search as the most effective and efficient method for demonstrating compliance with the requirement to consider alternatives’’ [9]. Investigators who are planning a new project prepare AUPs for review by the IACUC. There is no standard AUP form that is used for all US research institutions, although the protocols have common elements. Among the common elements are a description of the purpose and methods involved in the project, justifications for the number and species of animals used, and statements indicating that the published literature has been consulted to identify 216
ways in which animal pain and/or distress could be reduced or eliminated, in accordance with policy 12. At some biomedical research institutions, including the authors’ employer, a librarian who serves on the IACUC is tasked with reviewing the database selection and search strategies used in every protocol submitted for IACUC approval. Reference librarians at the authors’ institution also perform mediated searches for investigators to support AUPs. METHODS Study data were collected and managed using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure, webbased application designed to support data capture for research studies. REDCap is hosted by the Translational Research Institute at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) [10]. The study protocol, ‘‘Participation of Academic Health Sciences Librarians with Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs),’’ received institutional review board (IRB) approval (UAMS #136268) on April 16, 2012. Survey respondents were recruited in two ways. The first step was posting an invitation to the 150-plus subscribers to the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) email discussion list, which is primarily intended for directors of libraries affiliated with accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada. Two invitation messages, several weeks apart, were posted to the AAHSL list. Both messages requested an email reply containing contact information for a librarian willing to answer survey questions about IACUC involvement. In this way, the authors could keep track of which institutions did not need to be invited again via direct email message. Librarians who were identified as a result these invitations were sent information describing the study and containing a link to the survey. The second step in recruiting respondents was to use the website links from the AAMC online list of member colleges to find contact information for library directors or reference librarians affiliated with the listed institutions from which no participation email message had been received in response to the AAHSL posting. Contacts identified in this way were sent an email message describing the study and containing a link to the survey. For some of the schools on the list, no email or telephone contact information for a librarian was available. All respondents, whether recruited via the AAHSL email discussion list or direct email messages, received the same survey login instructions (i.e., the uniform resource locator [URL] for the survey page). There was no unique identifier, and therefore no way to monitor the institutional identity of respondents or ensure that each responding institution provided only one response. RESULTS The survey target population count of 155 institutions is the sum of the 152 entries on the AAMC Member J Med Lib Assoc 102(3) July 2014
Research reports: Steelman and Thomas
Schools web page on July 20, 2012, and the 3 responses received from AAHSL subscribers whose institutions were not on the AAMC list. Between June 1 and September 20, 2012, 60 surveys were completed, for a response rate of 39%. The first question asked for the survey-taker’s location by state, province, or National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM) region. The geographical distribution of responding institutions by NN/LM region is shown in Figure 1. The second question was: ‘‘Does any librarian on your campus provide literature searches or search strategy consultations in support of researchers’ animal use protocols?’’ There were 35 (58%) ‘‘Yes’’ and 25 (42%) ‘‘No’’ responses. The next few questions asked about librarian participation as an IACUC member. Current IACUC membership was reported by 22 (37%) respondents. The length of time that the same person had been an IACUC member ranged from 1 to 14 years (mean56.3), and the mean length of time any librarian had been an IACUC member was 8.5 years (same range). Although 21 of the 22 IACUCmember librarians (I-MLs) reportedly reviewed AUPs, only 16 had committee voting privileges. Of the 16 I-MLs who vote on protocols, 14 communicated their decisions at committee meetings. There were 8 responses describing additional methods of communicating review results, such as email messages or secure protocol management software. Fifteen I-MLs attended site visits; 21 received invitations to IACUC educational activities. Two respondents reported that the I-ML could not access IACUC review results. Twenty-one of the twenty-two I-MLs performed literature searches on request to support AUPs, and the same number offered consultations to researchers on search strategies for AUPs. Twelve of the I-MLs offered educational sessions on literature searching specifically for use in AUPs. Only one respondent answered ‘‘Yes’’ to the question: ‘‘Has the I-ML ever compiled a report correlating the involvement of a librarian in the literature search process with the positive or negative review of the Assurance Statement 1 section of protocols?’’ In response to a question about the number of literature searches performed by any librarians (not only the I-ML) to support AUPs over a 2-year period, the range was 3 to 200, with a mean of 62 (19 responses). Over the same period, the mean number of consultations reported was 17 (17 responses). Several respondents remarked that they did not keep a record of the purpose of database searches or consultations. The survey asked the following open-ended questions: & Has the participation of a librarian on the IACUC changed in the past five (5) years? If yes, please describe what changes have taken place. & What have been the benefits or challenges of participating on the IACUC? & What changes would you like to see in the responsibilities/activities of an I-ML? J Med Lib Assoc 102(3) July 2014
Figure 1 Geographical distribution of responding institutions by National Network of Libraries of Medicine region
Please describe any feedback library staff or administrators have received about librarian participation on the IACUC. & Additional comments. The changes in librarian participation are summarized below: & additional (second) librarian added to the IACUC (2) & librarian added to the IACUC (no previous librarian member) (1) & librarian left the IACUC and was not replaced (2) & librarian added as a consultant to the IACUC (1) & librarian began attending site visits; previous I-ML did not (1) & librarian’s name appears on the protocol as the searcher (1) The benefits of IACUC participation are summarized below, with the number of times each was mentioned: & better understanding of researchers’ activities and areas (15) & improved working relationships with researchers (12) & increased library/librarian profile, opportunities for marketing services (7) & interesting work (6) & enhanced searching skills (3) The challenges of IACUC participation were: & heavy workload; major time commitment (13) & frustration/resentment displayed by researchers to librarian (3) & ethical/emotional issues around animal research (3) & confidentiality: librarian has no opportunity to ‘‘decompress’’ from stressful meeting discussions (2) In response to the question on what changes they would like to see, the respondents replied: & require librarian review of literature searches as part of the AUP approval process (3) & increase librarian involvement (2) & provide more opportunities for contact with librarians in other institutions doing this work (2) & encourage researchers to involve the librarian (i.e., literature reviews) earlier in the research design process (1) &
217
Research reports: Steelman and Thomas
release time from other work (1) provide more science training (1) Feedback regarding librarian IACUC support included fourteen mentions of appreciation expressed by the IACUC chair, other IACUC members, principle investigators, other researchers, or a dean. In one instance, the visiting USDA auditors provided positive feedback on the quality and completeness of the AUP searching. Additional comments included: & ‘‘We have begun to offer our services to the IACUC but they have not responded to our offers.’’ & ‘‘I did offer to do literature searches, but I was never asked.’’ & ‘‘It is unclear if the researchers or IACUC members look closely at the results of the literature searches.’’ & ‘‘I have not seen good evidence that the literature searches (often performed after the rest of the protocol is written) have any impact on the research.’’ An additional comment of particular interest was that a librarian will chair the IACUC at one of the respondents’ institutions in 2013. The authors hope that this librarian will present or publish information detailing her or his experiences in this innovative role. & &
DISCUSSION According to the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database [11], 154 of the 155 target institutions that the authors surveyed have received NIH funding for some type of animal research, yet there were only 35 (23%) positive replies about librarian support for AUPs. In private conversations, several librarians have stated that they did not respond to the survey because they did not perform any tasks supporting AUPs or serve as IACUC members. Although it is possible that a large number of academic health sciences librarians who did participate in such activities either were unaware of the survey or chose not to complete it, it seems more likely that this low response rate credibly reflects a low level of participation by librarians. The most common challenge mentioned by respondents was the large time commitment involved in reviewing AUPs. Given the post-recession climate of ‘‘do even more with even less,’’ it seems unlikely that either more work time or the hiring of more librarians will be forthcoming. Additionally, some health sciences librarians come to the profession with little or no formal education in the biomedical sciences. This perceived shortcoming may discourage their participation in an activity that involves analyzing research protocols. As alluded to in the additional survey comments, some colleagues in other academic health sciences libraries have reported that they have tried, or were still trying, to offer their database searching services to support AUPs (as well as grant applications and other products) to research investigators but could not seem to get a foot in the door. The question of why more librarians are not involved in IACUC membership or are not supporting 218
AUPs appears to be open territory for future research. It might also be useful to survey investigators about what, if anything, can be done to increase their willingness to accept assistance from librarians. There has been some discussion in the library literature about how the profession can assist biomedical researchers in preparing AUPs. Chilov writes that searching for alternatives to the use of animals in research involves the type of database searching skills that most librarians already possess. With a minimal investment of time in professional development, medical librarians can become extremely proficient at performing these searches [1]. Lingle believes that librarian involvement is ‘‘an opportunity to greatly enhance the validity of the research protocol’’ and can have a positive impact on the number of research protocols that are successfully funded [6]. Osinski reminds librarians that one way for libraries to remain relevant is to provide value to the people they serve, and that one such value is helping a research faculty member comply with the law [4]. In addition, there are significant benefits to the librarians and libraries that do provide support for AUPs. For example: ‘‘It provides an ideal way for librarians to promote their value to the institution by helping its researchers meet the Animal Welfare Act legal requirement, and consequently, making them a part of the institution’s grant/award application process’’ [1]. Osinski offers an additional compelling potential benefit of librarian involvement, the ‘‘immeasurable value’’ of academic librarians putting their training and expertise to use to ‘‘make the difference between life or death, or pain and suffering for an animal used in an experiment’’ [4]. The authors agree that, through expertise in using biomedical information resources, health sciences librarians can improve the quality of literature reviews not only in the support of AUP requirements, but in the design of the research itself. Empirical evidence gathered supporting this premise might offer a helpful key to unlock some currently closed doors. CONCLUSION Librarians completing the survey reported receiving positive feedback about their IACUC and AUP support from a variety of sources, including the IACUC chair and other members, researchers, campus administrators, and visiting USDA auditors. The librarians also enjoyed an array of benefits from this work, such as better understanding of and working relationships with researchers, and a higher profile for the library and its services. However, the survey responses also suggest that the valuable skills and expertise of academic health sciences librarians are underutilized in this area. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors thank David Steelman of Liberty Clayworks for creating the artwork for Figure 1. J Med Lib Assoc 102(3) July 2014
Research reports: Steelman and Thomas
REFERENCES 1. Chilov M, Matsoukas K, Ispahany N, Allen TY, Lustbader JW. Using MeSH to search for alternatives to the use of animals in research. Med Ref Serv Q. 2007 Fall;26(3):55–74. 2. Nesdill D, Adams KM. Literature search strategies to comply with institutional animal care and use committee review requirements. J Vet Med Educ. 2011 Summer; 38(2):150–6. 3. Wood MW, Hart LA, Weng HY. Effective bibliographic searching for animal alternatives in veterinary medical education: the UC Davis web site. J Vet Med Educ. 2005 Winter;32(4):468–72. 4. Osinski JE. The Animal Welfare Act and why it matters to librarians. Ref Serv Rev. 2011;39(2):318–34. 5. Chilov M, Matsoukas K. Library support for an academic medical center’s institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). Poster presented at: MLA ’05, 105th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; San Antonio, TX; 14–19 May 2005 [cited 18 Jul 2013]. ,http://hdl.handle .net/10022/AC:P:9765.. 6. Lingle VA. The health sciences library and the IACUC in animal research: collaboration for more effective use of electronic resources. J Electron Resour Med Lib. 2008;5(3):243–59. 7. National Research Council. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. 8th ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. 8. Rosmiarek H. Origins of the IACUC. In: Silverman J, Suckow MA, Murthy S, eds. The IACUC handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007. p. 1.
J Med Lib Assoc 102(3) July 2014
9. US Department of Agriculture. Animal care policy manual: policy #12: consideration of alternatives to painful/distressful procedures [Internet]. Washington, DC: The Department [issue date: 25 Mar 2011; cited 19 Jul 2013]. ,http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/policy.php ?policy512.. 10. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377–81. 11. National Institutes of Health. Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: The Institutes [cited 23 Jul 2013]. ,www.http://report .nih.gov..
AUTHORS’ AFFILIATIONS Susan C. Steelman, MLIS, [email protected], Head of Education and Reference Services; Sheila L. Thomas, MA(LS) (corresponding author), SLThomas2@ uams.edu, Research and Clinical Search Services Coordinator; UAMS Library, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, #586, Little Rock, AR 72205 Received October 2013; accepted February 2014
219
Copyright of Journal of the Medical Library Association is the property of Medical Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Academic health sciences librarians’ contributions to institutional animal care and use committees*{ Susan C. Steelman, MLIS; Sheila L. Thomas, MA(LS) See end of article for authors’ affiliations. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.014
The study gathered data about librarians’ membership in institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) and their professional activities supporting animal researchers. Libraries affiliated with medical schools that were members of the Association of American Medical Colleges were surveyed. A survey was distributed via library directors’ email discussion lists and direct email messages. Sixty surveys were completed: 35 (58%) reported that librarians performed database searches for researchers, and 22 (37%) reported that a librarian currently serves on the IACUC. The survey suggests that academic health sciences librarians provide valuable, yet underutilized, services to support animal research investigators.
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to gather descriptive information about two types of activities performed by academic health sciences librarians working at libraries affiliated with medical schools accredited by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). One activity is participating as a member of the institutional animal use and care committee (IACUC); the other is providing literature searches * The REDCapTM survey software (version 4.13.10, E2013 Vanderbilt University) used for data collection is supported by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Translational Research Institute (grant NCATS/NIH 1 UL1 RR029884). { Based on a presentation at ‘‘One Health,’’ which included MLA ’13, the 113th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; the 11th International Congress on Medical Librarianship; the 7th International Conference of Animal Health Information Specialists; and the 6th International Clinical Librarian Conference.
J Med Lib Assoc 102(3) July 2014
215
Research reports: Steelman and Thomas
and/or search consultations that support animal use protocols (AUPs) to researchers. The published literature offers very little information about these activities. Many articles concerning librarians and institutional animal research or animal welfare consist of best-practice instructions for conducting database searches [1–3]. Osinski notes that, according to anecdotal evidence, few academic librarians are either serving on IACUCs or actively promoting their services to such committees [4]. There have been occasional individual accounts, such as Chilov’s 2005 poster about activities at Columbia University Medical Center [5] and Lingle’s report of being invited to serve as the nonscientific member of the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine IACUC [6]. An IACUC is the primary oversight mechanism for animal care and use, responsible through an institutional officer for and reporting directly to regulatory and granting agencies on animal care and use matters [7]. The US Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals states that institutions or organizations supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, awards, or contracts must establish a committee to oversee their animal care program [8]. The Animal Welfare Act Regulations (AWAR), enacted in 1989 and implemented and enforced by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), mandate that research institutions maintain a committee composed of at least three members that is charged with the responsibility for ensuring that the facility is in full compliance with the act [8]. Most US institutions engaged in animal research now have a single committee that satisfies both PHS and USDA requirements. Many IACUCs consist of six to ten members; in academic institutions, the number is often larger [8]. IACUC member activities include voting on AUPs at meetings, conducting site visits, and attending educational sessions. At the authors’ institution, a librarian participates as a full committee member. The USDA Animal Care Policy Manual describes twenty policies regarding animal use. Of particular relevance to librarians is ‘‘Policy 12: Consideration of Alternatives to Painful/Distressful Procedures.’’ Policy 12 states that investigators must consider alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to animals and provide a written narrative of the methods used and sources consulted to determine the availability of alternatives. The policy also states that the USDA ‘‘continues to recommend a database search as the most effective and efficient method for demonstrating compliance with the requirement to consider alternatives’’ [9]. Investigators who are planning a new project prepare AUPs for review by the IACUC. There is no standard AUP form that is used for all US research institutions, although the protocols have common elements. Among the common elements are a description of the purpose and methods involved in the project, justifications for the number and species of animals used, and statements indicating that the published literature has been consulted to identify 216
ways in which animal pain and/or distress could be reduced or eliminated, in accordance with policy 12. At some biomedical research institutions, including the authors’ employer, a librarian who serves on the IACUC is tasked with reviewing the database selection and search strategies used in every protocol submitted for IACUC approval. Reference librarians at the authors’ institution also perform mediated searches for investigators to support AUPs. METHODS Study data were collected and managed using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure, webbased application designed to support data capture for research studies. REDCap is hosted by the Translational Research Institute at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) [10]. The study protocol, ‘‘Participation of Academic Health Sciences Librarians with Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs),’’ received institutional review board (IRB) approval (UAMS #136268) on April 16, 2012. Survey respondents were recruited in two ways. The first step was posting an invitation to the 150-plus subscribers to the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) email discussion list, which is primarily intended for directors of libraries affiliated with accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada. Two invitation messages, several weeks apart, were posted to the AAHSL list. Both messages requested an email reply containing contact information for a librarian willing to answer survey questions about IACUC involvement. In this way, the authors could keep track of which institutions did not need to be invited again via direct email message. Librarians who were identified as a result these invitations were sent information describing the study and containing a link to the survey. The second step in recruiting respondents was to use the website links from the AAMC online list of member colleges to find contact information for library directors or reference librarians affiliated with the listed institutions from which no participation email message had been received in response to the AAHSL posting. Contacts identified in this way were sent an email message describing the study and containing a link to the survey. For some of the schools on the list, no email or telephone contact information for a librarian was available. All respondents, whether recruited via the AAHSL email discussion list or direct email messages, received the same survey login instructions (i.e., the uniform resource locator [URL] for the survey page). There was no unique identifier, and therefore no way to monitor the institutional identity of respondents or ensure that each responding institution provided only one response. RESULTS The survey target population count of 155 institutions is the sum of the 152 entries on the AAMC Member J Med Lib Assoc 102(3) July 2014
Research reports: Steelman and Thomas
Schools web page on July 20, 2012, and the 3 responses received from AAHSL subscribers whose institutions were not on the AAMC list. Between June 1 and September 20, 2012, 60 surveys were completed, for a response rate of 39%. The first question asked for the survey-taker’s location by state, province, or National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM) region. The geographical distribution of responding institutions by NN/LM region is shown in Figure 1. The second question was: ‘‘Does any librarian on your campus provide literature searches or search strategy consultations in support of researchers’ animal use protocols?’’ There were 35 (58%) ‘‘Yes’’ and 25 (42%) ‘‘No’’ responses. The next few questions asked about librarian participation as an IACUC member. Current IACUC membership was reported by 22 (37%) respondents. The length of time that the same person had been an IACUC member ranged from 1 to 14 years (mean56.3), and the mean length of time any librarian had been an IACUC member was 8.5 years (same range). Although 21 of the 22 IACUCmember librarians (I-MLs) reportedly reviewed AUPs, only 16 had committee voting privileges. Of the 16 I-MLs who vote on protocols, 14 communicated their decisions at committee meetings. There were 8 responses describing additional methods of communicating review results, such as email messages or secure protocol management software. Fifteen I-MLs attended site visits; 21 received invitations to IACUC educational activities. Two respondents reported that the I-ML could not access IACUC review results. Twenty-one of the twenty-two I-MLs performed literature searches on request to support AUPs, and the same number offered consultations to researchers on search strategies for AUPs. Twelve of the I-MLs offered educational sessions on literature searching specifically for use in AUPs. Only one respondent answered ‘‘Yes’’ to the question: ‘‘Has the I-ML ever compiled a report correlating the involvement of a librarian in the literature search process with the positive or negative review of the Assurance Statement 1 section of protocols?’’ In response to a question about the number of literature searches performed by any librarians (not only the I-ML) to support AUPs over a 2-year period, the range was 3 to 200, with a mean of 62 (19 responses). Over the same period, the mean number of consultations reported was 17 (17 responses). Several respondents remarked that they did not keep a record of the purpose of database searches or consultations. The survey asked the following open-ended questions: & Has the participation of a librarian on the IACUC changed in the past five (5) years? If yes, please describe what changes have taken place. & What have been the benefits or challenges of participating on the IACUC? & What changes would you like to see in the responsibilities/activities of an I-ML? J Med Lib Assoc 102(3) July 2014
Figure 1 Geographical distribution of responding institutions by National Network of Libraries of Medicine region
Please describe any feedback library staff or administrators have received about librarian participation on the IACUC. & Additional comments. The changes in librarian participation are summarized below: & additional (second) librarian added to the IACUC (2) & librarian added to the IACUC (no previous librarian member) (1) & librarian left the IACUC and was not replaced (2) & librarian added as a consultant to the IACUC (1) & librarian began attending site visits; previous I-ML did not (1) & librarian’s name appears on the protocol as the searcher (1) The benefits of IACUC participation are summarized below, with the number of times each was mentioned: & better understanding of researchers’ activities and areas (15) & improved working relationships with researchers (12) & increased library/librarian profile, opportunities for marketing services (7) & interesting work (6) & enhanced searching skills (3) The challenges of IACUC participation were: & heavy workload; major time commitment (13) & frustration/resentment displayed by researchers to librarian (3) & ethical/emotional issues around animal research (3) & confidentiality: librarian has no opportunity to ‘‘decompress’’ from stressful meeting discussions (2) In response to the question on what changes they would like to see, the respondents replied: & require librarian review of literature searches as part of the AUP approval process (3) & increase librarian involvement (2) & provide more opportunities for contact with librarians in other institutions doing this work (2) & encourage researchers to involve the librarian (i.e., literature reviews) earlier in the research design process (1) &
217
Research reports: Steelman and Thomas
release time from other work (1) provide more science training (1) Feedback regarding librarian IACUC support included fourteen mentions of appreciation expressed by the IACUC chair, other IACUC members, principle investigators, other researchers, or a dean. In one instance, the visiting USDA auditors provided positive feedback on the quality and completeness of the AUP searching. Additional comments included: & ‘‘We have begun to offer our services to the IACUC but they have not responded to our offers.’’ & ‘‘I did offer to do literature searches, but I was never asked.’’ & ‘‘It is unclear if the researchers or IACUC members look closely at the results of the literature searches.’’ & ‘‘I have not seen good evidence that the literature searches (often performed after the rest of the protocol is written) have any impact on the research.’’ An additional comment of particular interest was that a librarian will chair the IACUC at one of the respondents’ institutions in 2013. The authors hope that this librarian will present or publish information detailing her or his experiences in this innovative role. & &
DISCUSSION According to the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database [11], 154 of the 155 target institutions that the authors surveyed have received NIH funding for some type of animal research, yet there were only 35 (23%) positive replies about librarian support for AUPs. In private conversations, several librarians have stated that they did not respond to the survey because they did not perform any tasks supporting AUPs or serve as IACUC members. Although it is possible that a large number of academic health sciences librarians who did participate in such activities either were unaware of the survey or chose not to complete it, it seems more likely that this low response rate credibly reflects a low level of participation by librarians. The most common challenge mentioned by respondents was the large time commitment involved in reviewing AUPs. Given the post-recession climate of ‘‘do even more with even less,’’ it seems unlikely that either more work time or the hiring of more librarians will be forthcoming. Additionally, some health sciences librarians come to the profession with little or no formal education in the biomedical sciences. This perceived shortcoming may discourage their participation in an activity that involves analyzing research protocols. As alluded to in the additional survey comments, some colleagues in other academic health sciences libraries have reported that they have tried, or were still trying, to offer their database searching services to support AUPs (as well as grant applications and other products) to research investigators but could not seem to get a foot in the door. The question of why more librarians are not involved in IACUC membership or are not supporting 218
AUPs appears to be open territory for future research. It might also be useful to survey investigators about what, if anything, can be done to increase their willingness to accept assistance from librarians. There has been some discussion in the library literature about how the profession can assist biomedical researchers in preparing AUPs. Chilov writes that searching for alternatives to the use of animals in research involves the type of database searching skills that most librarians already possess. With a minimal investment of time in professional development, medical librarians can become extremely proficient at performing these searches [1]. Lingle believes that librarian involvement is ‘‘an opportunity to greatly enhance the validity of the research protocol’’ and can have a positive impact on the number of research protocols that are successfully funded [6]. Osinski reminds librarians that one way for libraries to remain relevant is to provide value to the people they serve, and that one such value is helping a research faculty member comply with the law [4]. In addition, there are significant benefits to the librarians and libraries that do provide support for AUPs. For example: ‘‘It provides an ideal way for librarians to promote their value to the institution by helping its researchers meet the Animal Welfare Act legal requirement, and consequently, making them a part of the institution’s grant/award application process’’ [1]. Osinski offers an additional compelling potential benefit of librarian involvement, the ‘‘immeasurable value’’ of academic librarians putting their training and expertise to use to ‘‘make the difference between life or death, or pain and suffering for an animal used in an experiment’’ [4]. The authors agree that, through expertise in using biomedical information resources, health sciences librarians can improve the quality of literature reviews not only in the support of AUP requirements, but in the design of the research itself. Empirical evidence gathered supporting this premise might offer a helpful key to unlock some currently closed doors. CONCLUSION Librarians completing the survey reported receiving positive feedback about their IACUC and AUP support from a variety of sources, including the IACUC chair and other members, researchers, campus administrators, and visiting USDA auditors. The librarians also enjoyed an array of benefits from this work, such as better understanding of and working relationships with researchers, and a higher profile for the library and its services. However, the survey responses also suggest that the valuable skills and expertise of academic health sciences librarians are underutilized in this area. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors thank David Steelman of Liberty Clayworks for creating the artwork for Figure 1. J Med Lib Assoc 102(3) July 2014
Research reports: Steelman and Thomas
REFERENCES 1. Chilov M, Matsoukas K, Ispahany N, Allen TY, Lustbader JW. Using MeSH to search for alternatives to the use of animals in research. Med Ref Serv Q. 2007 Fall;26(3):55–74. 2. Nesdill D, Adams KM. Literature search strategies to comply with institutional animal care and use committee review requirements. J Vet Med Educ. 2011 Summer; 38(2):150–6. 3. Wood MW, Hart LA, Weng HY. Effective bibliographic searching for animal alternatives in veterinary medical education: the UC Davis web site. J Vet Med Educ. 2005 Winter;32(4):468–72. 4. Osinski JE. The Animal Welfare Act and why it matters to librarians. Ref Serv Rev. 2011;39(2):318–34. 5. Chilov M, Matsoukas K. Library support for an academic medical center’s institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). Poster presented at: MLA ’05, 105th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; San Antonio, TX; 14–19 May 2005 [cited 18 Jul 2013]. ,http://hdl.handle .net/10022/AC:P:9765.. 6. Lingle VA. The health sciences library and the IACUC in animal research: collaboration for more effective use of electronic resources. J Electron Resour Med Lib. 2008;5(3):243–59. 7. National Research Council. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. 8th ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. 8. Rosmiarek H. Origins of the IACUC. In: Silverman J, Suckow MA, Murthy S, eds. The IACUC handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007. p. 1.
J Med Lib Assoc 102(3) July 2014
9. US Department of Agriculture. Animal care policy manual: policy #12: consideration of alternatives to painful/distressful procedures [Internet]. Washington, DC: The Department [issue date: 25 Mar 2011; cited 19 Jul 2013]. ,http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/policy.php ?policy512.. 10. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377–81. 11. National Institutes of Health. Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: The Institutes [cited 23 Jul 2013]. ,www.http://report .nih.gov..
AUTHORS’ AFFILIATIONS Susan C. Steelman, MLIS, [email protected], Head of Education and Reference Services; Sheila L. Thomas, MA(LS) (corresponding author), SLThomas2@ uams.edu, Research and Clinical Search Services Coordinator; UAMS Library, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, #586, Little Rock, AR 72205 Received October 2013; accepted February 2014
219
Copyright of Journal of the Medical Library Association is the property of Medical Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
