Research reports: Mazure and Alpi
Librarian readiness for research partnerships* §3 E m ily S. M a z u re , M S I, A H IP ; K r is tin e M . A lp i, M L S , M P H , A H IP See end of article for authors’ affiliations. DOI: http://dx.doi.0rg/10.3163/1536-5050.103.2.007
This study investigated health sciences librarians' knowledge and skill-based readiness to partner on sponsored research involving human participants. The authors developed and deployed, at two time points, a web-based survey on nine indicators of research activities with response choices reflecting the transtheoretical model of stages of behavior change. Librarians with research experience or membership in the Medical Library Association Research Section reported higher levels of having completed indicators. Our results suggest that creating awareness in precontemplation responders could encourage skill development. Mentoring and continuing education could support librarians who are contemplating or preparing to perform indicator activities.
INTRODUCTION Librarians consider themselves partners in institution al research endeavors. In coauthored studies other than systematic reviews and bibliometric analyses, the nature of the librarian's role can be hard to determine [1]. While journals such as the American Journal of Public Health [2] outline individual author roles in the publication, these details are not required by all International Committee of Medical Journal Editors journals [3]. Several studies and reports discuss research performed by librarians and the barriers or support mechanisms that influence librarian participa tion in research [4-11], Many factors contribute to readiness to collaborate on research: personal and motivational factors, job duties, structural support, and skill-based preparation. In 2010, Luo found only 61% of 49 accredited library programs require a research * Based on a paper presented at MLA '13, the 113th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Boston, MA; May 7, 2013. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association's Independent Reading Program < http://www.mlanet .org/education/irp/>. S 3 A supplemental appendix and supplemental Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 6, Table 7, Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 are available with the online version of this journal.
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
course [12]. These courses might not cover human subjects research ethics, which is commonly required training for students in biomedical research or health professions or for those engaged in research programs funded by the National Institutes of Health [13]. The authors were interested in how prepared librarians are in terms of having developed research knowledge and skills to partner in research involving human participants. Preparedness, or readiness, to adopt or change a behavior is a common construct in health education. A highly cited theoretical framework from health behavior that could be applied to under taking skill development is the transtheoretical (also known as "stages of change") model [14], which involves six stages of change shown in Figure 1 (online only): precontemplation (no intention to change in the next six months), contemplation (intending to change within six months), preparation (intending to change in the immediate future-one month), action (activity within the past six months), maintenance (working to prevent relapse), and relapse (normally regression to a previous stage). The model fit our idea that professional organizations could use stages of readiness to plan interventions to support librarians in moving along a continuum of research partnership preparation. Our objective was to investigate health sciences librarians' knowledge and skill-based readiness to partner on sponsored research involving human partic ipants. We hypothesized that (1) librarians involved in any type of research would have more knowledge and skills that prepare them to be partners than those who were not involved in research, and (2) the majority of respondents would be contemplating further engage ment in developing research skills. We also wanted to explore whether asking librarians about their knowl edge or skills would lead to increased consideration or pursuit of indicator behaviors. METHODS Instrument and study design We could not identify an established measure of librarian participation or readiness to participate in human participant or sponsored research. To oper ationalize the construct of readiness, we generated a list of activities that we have been asked to do when participating with nonlibrarian collaborators. These activities were framed as nine indicators, grouped into three categories (Table 1, online only). For each indicator, response choices were formu lated for participants to select a status reflecting the transtheoretical model stages of precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and relapse by providing time frames corresponding to each stage (Figure 1, online only). We set time frames for maintenance (within 1 year) and relapse (2 years), based on the idea that many institutions require human subject protections and responsible conduct of research training be updated annually. To assess validity, background questions determined previous research experience, attitude toward research, publi91
Research reports: Mazure and Alpi
cation history, and association membership. The survey (Appendix, online only) was pilot-tested with librarians. We planned to conduct the assessment twice, first to capture a snapshot of the populationlevel readiness and six months later to investigate whether the proportion of respondents in the con templation, preparation, or action stages would differ over time, indicating the transtheoretical framework's stages of change might apply in this context.
for thematic analysis. We independently read the responses and created and applied initial codes using the constant comparative method [16]. Then we independently generated themes from the coded responses and came to consensus on theme assign ment and definitions. RESULTS Population response rates and characteristics
Population selection and recruitment To study our hypothesis that health librarians with research exposure are more prepared, we chose two populations affiliated with the Medical Library Association (MLA): members of the Research Section (RS), chosen for their presumed interest in research, and members of the Mid-Atlantic Chapter (MAC) of MLA, chosen as a convenient comparison. Both investigators were RS and MAC members and could post to email lists. The RS list is members only, though lapsed members may also be present. The MAC email list allows nonmembers. While a longitu dinal study with assigned participant identifiers to track change over time would be stronger, we chose to reduce the burden of participation and encourage responses by pursuing anonymous, distinct crosssectional surveys at two time points. The Duke University Health System Institutional Review Board (IRB) exempted the anonymous, web-based survey, which was developed in Qualtrics, a secure, webbased data collection program. On October 8, 2012, we sent a recruitment email inviting participation in the initial survey, followed by a reminder sent one week before the survey closed. We obtained email addresses for subscribers to the lists on or around October 8, consolidated emails belonging to the same person, and determined the number of unique recipients. We sent the follow-up survey recruitment email to the same email lists six months later (April 8, 2013) with the same deadlines and reminders. The otherwise identical survey had one additional question asking respondents if they had responded to the first survey (Appendix, online only). Analytic comparison Across-group comparisons using chi-square tests between populations of RS members (R) and RS nonmembers (NR) for each indicator at each stage at the October 2012 time point were planned. To investigate where populations might be amenable to interventions, we collapsed the six stages of change responses into three categories that might direct future activities: precontemplation (original precontempla tion), consideration (original contemplation+preparation), and done (original action+maintenance+relapse). Qualitative analysis Open-ended text responses from both surveys were brought into NVivo software, version 10.0.200.0 [15], 92
Survey 1 (October 2012) garnered 133 respondents, a 16% response rate based on 809 unique emails. Survey 2 (April 2013) had 111 respondents from 808 unique emails, a 14% response rate. Figure 2 (online only) illustrates the respondents' affiliation with RS and MAC for each survey. Figure 3 (online only) illustrates how we divided respondents for analysis into R and NR. Not all respondents answered each of the questions, which is why the number of respondents for several questions is less than the overall number of respondents. Respondents within groups across surveys (Table 2, online only) were very similar with no statistically significant differences in background question response rates (Table 3, online only), so we pooled responses from first-time responders at both time points. Almost all respondents (96%) indicated that being engaged in research was important. A substantial percentage (39%) had worked on a funded research project. Individual and aggregated indicators by stage across Research Section member and nonmember groups For first-time respondents (n=145), we compared R and NR responses for each of the indicators at each stage of change (Table 3, online only) and found statistically significant differences between R and NR respondents in online manuscript submission (X=15.72, df= 5, P=0.0077). Collapsing the stages of action, maintenance, and relapse into the category "done" and using number of participants as the sample size (Table 5), the R completion rate across all 9 indicators of 58% (462/790) was not significantly different (P=0.0733) from the NR: 43% (210/489). The low percentage of responses in either contemplation or preparation across all indicators in both R and NR groups refuted the hypothesis that the majority of respondents were contemplating further engagement in indicator activities. Individual indicators by aggregated stage Across all indicators, just over half of responses in both surveys reflected completion. The most com monly completed indicators for first-time responders (Table 4, online only) were responsible conduct of research training (69%), IRB application (64%), man uscript submission (58%), and statistics or data analysis (55%). Less commonly completed were having a Public Health Service (PHS) 398 biosketch (25%) or profiling site presence (32%); these indicators also had the highest percentage of precontemplation J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
Research reports: Mazure and Alpi
Table 5 Comparison of proportions of responses at each stage across all 9 indicators based on first-time participants at either survey time point for Research Section (n=92) and Non-Research Section (n=58) R e s e a rc h S e c tio n (R )
Precontemplation Contemplation Preparation Action Maintenance Relapse
N o n -R e s e a rc h S e c tio n (N R )
n
(%)
n
(%)
R and NR
240 106 15 178 80 183
(30%) (13%) (2%) (23%) (10%) (23%)
222 70 12 72 50 90
(45%) (14%) (2%) (15%) (10%) (18%)
15% 1% —
-8 % —
-5 %
Done— the combination of action, maintenance, relapse— represents group’s overall preparation. Using number of participants as the sample size: Research Section completion rate of 58% (462/790) is not statistically significantly different (P = 0.0733) from the Non-Research Section: 43% (210/489). Proportions based on total number of responses (1,279) for all participants (150) for all 9 indicator questions.
responses at 72% and 57%, respectively (Table 4, online only). Population-level differences in stage over the 6 months could not be confidently analyzed due to the low proportion of respondents (18 of 118) who recalled participating in the first survey. For the 18 respondents to the second survey who recalled completing survey 1, completion rates for R (71%; 75/ 106) did not differ significantly from NR (54%; 29/54) (data not shown). Confirmatory analysis To validate that indicator stages reflected research experience or activities, we reviewed responses across indicators for participants in either group who report ed having previously conducted funded research compared to those who reported having no previous role in funded research. Those respondents were then regrouped as experienced or non-experienced, and new across-group comparisons were made. Nonexperienced participants selected precontemplation significantly more (P. 4. Powell RR, Baker LM, Mika JJ. Library and information science practitioners and research. Lib Info Sci. 2002; 24:49-72. 5. Henry DB, Neville TM. Research, publication, and service patterns of Florida academic librarians. J Acad Lib. 2004 Nov;30(6):435-51. 6. Fox D. Finding time for scholarship: a survey of Canadian research university librarians. Portal: Lib Acad. 2007;7(4):451-62. 7. Fox D. Scholarship of Canadian research university librarians. Partnership: Canad J Lib Inf Pract Res. 2007;2:1. 8. Finlay SC, Ni C, Tsou A, Sugimoto CR. Publish or practice? an examination of librarians' contributions to research. Portal: Lib Acad. 2013;13:403-21. 9. Schrader AM, Shiri A, Williamson V. Assessment of the research learning needs of University of Saskatchewan librarians: a case study. Coll Res Lib. 2012 Mar;73(2):147-63. 10. Cosgriff J, Kenney D, McMillan G. Support for publishing at academic libraries: how much exists? J Acad Lib. 1990 May;16(2):94-7. 11. Rogers SE. Support for research and publishing in Tennessee's academic libraries. Tennessee Lib. 1996;48:3543. 12. Luo L. Fusing research into practice: the role of research methods education. Lib Inf Sci Res. 2011 Jul;33(3):191— 201.
94
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to the email list managers of the Research Section and the Mid-Atlantic Chapter of MLA who provided data that allowed us to assess recruitment overlap.
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
Research reports: Mazure and Alpi
13. Frequently asked questions: human subjects research requirement for education [Internet]. National Institutes of Health; 2013 [cited 10 Mar 2013]. < http://grants.nih.gov/ grants/policy/hs_educ_faq.htm>. 14. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997 SepOct;12(l):38-48. 15. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 10.0.200.0 QSR International; 2012. 16. Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990. 17. Leonard M, Bennett DB. SPEC Kit 336: responsible conduct of research training [Internet]. Association of Research Libraries; 2013 [cited 10 Mar 2014]. < h ttp :// publications.arl.org/Responsible-Conduct-Research-Training -SPEC-Kit-336>. 18. Kennedy MR, Brancolini KR. Academic librarian re search: a survey of attitudes, involvement, and perceived capabilities. Coll Res Lib. 2012 Sep;73(5):431M8. 19. Kennedy M. Results from librarian survey on research capacities [Internet]. Message to: Kristine Alpi. 2014 Jan 13. 20. Martyniak C, Keith B. SPEC Kit 315: leave and professional development benefits. Association of Research Libraries; 2009. 21. Berg SA, Jacobs HLM, Cornwall D. Academic librarians and research: a study of Canadian library administrator perspectives. Coll Res Lib. 2013 Nov;74(6):560-72.
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
22. Sassen C, Wahl D. Fostering research and publication in academic libraries. Coll Res Lib. 2014 Jul;75(4):458-91. 23. Hutcherson L. My NCBI curriculum vitae web applica tion: SciENcv. NLM Tech Bull [Internet], 2013 SepOct;(394):e3 [cited 10 Mar 2014]. < http://www.nlm .nih .gov/pubs/techbull/sol3/sol3_sciencv.html>.
AUTHORS' AFFILIATIONS Emily S. Mazure, MSI, AHIP, [email protected], Bio medical Research Liaison Li brarian, Medical Center Library & Archives, Duke University, DUMC 3702, Durham, NC 27710; Kristine M. Alpi, MLS, MPH, AHIP, kmalpi@ncsu .edu, Director, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Library of Veterinary Medicine, and Adjunct Assis tant Professor, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, North Carolina State University, 1060 William Moore Drive, Raleigh, NC 27607
Received April 2014; accepted November 2014
95
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.
Librarian readiness for research partnerships* §3 E m ily S. M a z u re , M S I, A H IP ; K r is tin e M . A lp i, M L S , M P H , A H IP See end of article for authors’ affiliations. DOI: http://dx.doi.0rg/10.3163/1536-5050.103.2.007
This study investigated health sciences librarians' knowledge and skill-based readiness to partner on sponsored research involving human participants. The authors developed and deployed, at two time points, a web-based survey on nine indicators of research activities with response choices reflecting the transtheoretical model of stages of behavior change. Librarians with research experience or membership in the Medical Library Association Research Section reported higher levels of having completed indicators. Our results suggest that creating awareness in precontemplation responders could encourage skill development. Mentoring and continuing education could support librarians who are contemplating or preparing to perform indicator activities.
INTRODUCTION Librarians consider themselves partners in institution al research endeavors. In coauthored studies other than systematic reviews and bibliometric analyses, the nature of the librarian's role can be hard to determine [1]. While journals such as the American Journal of Public Health [2] outline individual author roles in the publication, these details are not required by all International Committee of Medical Journal Editors journals [3]. Several studies and reports discuss research performed by librarians and the barriers or support mechanisms that influence librarian participa tion in research [4-11], Many factors contribute to readiness to collaborate on research: personal and motivational factors, job duties, structural support, and skill-based preparation. In 2010, Luo found only 61% of 49 accredited library programs require a research * Based on a paper presented at MLA '13, the 113th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Boston, MA; May 7, 2013. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association's Independent Reading Program < http://www.mlanet .org/education/irp/>. S 3 A supplemental appendix and supplemental Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 6, Table 7, Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 are available with the online version of this journal.
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
course [12]. These courses might not cover human subjects research ethics, which is commonly required training for students in biomedical research or health professions or for those engaged in research programs funded by the National Institutes of Health [13]. The authors were interested in how prepared librarians are in terms of having developed research knowledge and skills to partner in research involving human participants. Preparedness, or readiness, to adopt or change a behavior is a common construct in health education. A highly cited theoretical framework from health behavior that could be applied to under taking skill development is the transtheoretical (also known as "stages of change") model [14], which involves six stages of change shown in Figure 1 (online only): precontemplation (no intention to change in the next six months), contemplation (intending to change within six months), preparation (intending to change in the immediate future-one month), action (activity within the past six months), maintenance (working to prevent relapse), and relapse (normally regression to a previous stage). The model fit our idea that professional organizations could use stages of readiness to plan interventions to support librarians in moving along a continuum of research partnership preparation. Our objective was to investigate health sciences librarians' knowledge and skill-based readiness to partner on sponsored research involving human partic ipants. We hypothesized that (1) librarians involved in any type of research would have more knowledge and skills that prepare them to be partners than those who were not involved in research, and (2) the majority of respondents would be contemplating further engage ment in developing research skills. We also wanted to explore whether asking librarians about their knowl edge or skills would lead to increased consideration or pursuit of indicator behaviors. METHODS Instrument and study design We could not identify an established measure of librarian participation or readiness to participate in human participant or sponsored research. To oper ationalize the construct of readiness, we generated a list of activities that we have been asked to do when participating with nonlibrarian collaborators. These activities were framed as nine indicators, grouped into three categories (Table 1, online only). For each indicator, response choices were formu lated for participants to select a status reflecting the transtheoretical model stages of precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and relapse by providing time frames corresponding to each stage (Figure 1, online only). We set time frames for maintenance (within 1 year) and relapse (2 years), based on the idea that many institutions require human subject protections and responsible conduct of research training be updated annually. To assess validity, background questions determined previous research experience, attitude toward research, publi91
Research reports: Mazure and Alpi
cation history, and association membership. The survey (Appendix, online only) was pilot-tested with librarians. We planned to conduct the assessment twice, first to capture a snapshot of the populationlevel readiness and six months later to investigate whether the proportion of respondents in the con templation, preparation, or action stages would differ over time, indicating the transtheoretical framework's stages of change might apply in this context.
for thematic analysis. We independently read the responses and created and applied initial codes using the constant comparative method [16]. Then we independently generated themes from the coded responses and came to consensus on theme assign ment and definitions. RESULTS Population response rates and characteristics
Population selection and recruitment To study our hypothesis that health librarians with research exposure are more prepared, we chose two populations affiliated with the Medical Library Association (MLA): members of the Research Section (RS), chosen for their presumed interest in research, and members of the Mid-Atlantic Chapter (MAC) of MLA, chosen as a convenient comparison. Both investigators were RS and MAC members and could post to email lists. The RS list is members only, though lapsed members may also be present. The MAC email list allows nonmembers. While a longitu dinal study with assigned participant identifiers to track change over time would be stronger, we chose to reduce the burden of participation and encourage responses by pursuing anonymous, distinct crosssectional surveys at two time points. The Duke University Health System Institutional Review Board (IRB) exempted the anonymous, web-based survey, which was developed in Qualtrics, a secure, webbased data collection program. On October 8, 2012, we sent a recruitment email inviting participation in the initial survey, followed by a reminder sent one week before the survey closed. We obtained email addresses for subscribers to the lists on or around October 8, consolidated emails belonging to the same person, and determined the number of unique recipients. We sent the follow-up survey recruitment email to the same email lists six months later (April 8, 2013) with the same deadlines and reminders. The otherwise identical survey had one additional question asking respondents if they had responded to the first survey (Appendix, online only). Analytic comparison Across-group comparisons using chi-square tests between populations of RS members (R) and RS nonmembers (NR) for each indicator at each stage at the October 2012 time point were planned. To investigate where populations might be amenable to interventions, we collapsed the six stages of change responses into three categories that might direct future activities: precontemplation (original precontempla tion), consideration (original contemplation+preparation), and done (original action+maintenance+relapse). Qualitative analysis Open-ended text responses from both surveys were brought into NVivo software, version 10.0.200.0 [15], 92
Survey 1 (October 2012) garnered 133 respondents, a 16% response rate based on 809 unique emails. Survey 2 (April 2013) had 111 respondents from 808 unique emails, a 14% response rate. Figure 2 (online only) illustrates the respondents' affiliation with RS and MAC for each survey. Figure 3 (online only) illustrates how we divided respondents for analysis into R and NR. Not all respondents answered each of the questions, which is why the number of respondents for several questions is less than the overall number of respondents. Respondents within groups across surveys (Table 2, online only) were very similar with no statistically significant differences in background question response rates (Table 3, online only), so we pooled responses from first-time responders at both time points. Almost all respondents (96%) indicated that being engaged in research was important. A substantial percentage (39%) had worked on a funded research project. Individual and aggregated indicators by stage across Research Section member and nonmember groups For first-time respondents (n=145), we compared R and NR responses for each of the indicators at each stage of change (Table 3, online only) and found statistically significant differences between R and NR respondents in online manuscript submission (X=15.72, df= 5, P=0.0077). Collapsing the stages of action, maintenance, and relapse into the category "done" and using number of participants as the sample size (Table 5), the R completion rate across all 9 indicators of 58% (462/790) was not significantly different (P=0.0733) from the NR: 43% (210/489). The low percentage of responses in either contemplation or preparation across all indicators in both R and NR groups refuted the hypothesis that the majority of respondents were contemplating further engagement in indicator activities. Individual indicators by aggregated stage Across all indicators, just over half of responses in both surveys reflected completion. The most com monly completed indicators for first-time responders (Table 4, online only) were responsible conduct of research training (69%), IRB application (64%), man uscript submission (58%), and statistics or data analysis (55%). Less commonly completed were having a Public Health Service (PHS) 398 biosketch (25%) or profiling site presence (32%); these indicators also had the highest percentage of precontemplation J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
Research reports: Mazure and Alpi
Table 5 Comparison of proportions of responses at each stage across all 9 indicators based on first-time participants at either survey time point for Research Section (n=92) and Non-Research Section (n=58) R e s e a rc h S e c tio n (R )
Precontemplation Contemplation Preparation Action Maintenance Relapse
N o n -R e s e a rc h S e c tio n (N R )
n
(%)
n
(%)
R and NR
240 106 15 178 80 183
(30%) (13%) (2%) (23%) (10%) (23%)
222 70 12 72 50 90
(45%) (14%) (2%) (15%) (10%) (18%)
15% 1% —
-8 % —
-5 %
Done— the combination of action, maintenance, relapse— represents group’s overall preparation. Using number of participants as the sample size: Research Section completion rate of 58% (462/790) is not statistically significantly different (P = 0.0733) from the Non-Research Section: 43% (210/489). Proportions based on total number of responses (1,279) for all participants (150) for all 9 indicator questions.
responses at 72% and 57%, respectively (Table 4, online only). Population-level differences in stage over the 6 months could not be confidently analyzed due to the low proportion of respondents (18 of 118) who recalled participating in the first survey. For the 18 respondents to the second survey who recalled completing survey 1, completion rates for R (71%; 75/ 106) did not differ significantly from NR (54%; 29/54) (data not shown). Confirmatory analysis To validate that indicator stages reflected research experience or activities, we reviewed responses across indicators for participants in either group who report ed having previously conducted funded research compared to those who reported having no previous role in funded research. Those respondents were then regrouped as experienced or non-experienced, and new across-group comparisons were made. Nonexperienced participants selected precontemplation significantly more (P. 4. Powell RR, Baker LM, Mika JJ. Library and information science practitioners and research. Lib Info Sci. 2002; 24:49-72. 5. Henry DB, Neville TM. Research, publication, and service patterns of Florida academic librarians. J Acad Lib. 2004 Nov;30(6):435-51. 6. Fox D. Finding time for scholarship: a survey of Canadian research university librarians. Portal: Lib Acad. 2007;7(4):451-62. 7. Fox D. Scholarship of Canadian research university librarians. Partnership: Canad J Lib Inf Pract Res. 2007;2:1. 8. Finlay SC, Ni C, Tsou A, Sugimoto CR. Publish or practice? an examination of librarians' contributions to research. Portal: Lib Acad. 2013;13:403-21. 9. Schrader AM, Shiri A, Williamson V. Assessment of the research learning needs of University of Saskatchewan librarians: a case study. Coll Res Lib. 2012 Mar;73(2):147-63. 10. Cosgriff J, Kenney D, McMillan G. Support for publishing at academic libraries: how much exists? J Acad Lib. 1990 May;16(2):94-7. 11. Rogers SE. Support for research and publishing in Tennessee's academic libraries. Tennessee Lib. 1996;48:3543. 12. Luo L. Fusing research into practice: the role of research methods education. Lib Inf Sci Res. 2011 Jul;33(3):191— 201.
94
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to the email list managers of the Research Section and the Mid-Atlantic Chapter of MLA who provided data that allowed us to assess recruitment overlap.
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
Research reports: Mazure and Alpi
13. Frequently asked questions: human subjects research requirement for education [Internet]. National Institutes of Health; 2013 [cited 10 Mar 2013]. < http://grants.nih.gov/ grants/policy/hs_educ_faq.htm>. 14. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997 SepOct;12(l):38-48. 15. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 10.0.200.0 QSR International; 2012. 16. Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990. 17. Leonard M, Bennett DB. SPEC Kit 336: responsible conduct of research training [Internet]. Association of Research Libraries; 2013 [cited 10 Mar 2014]. < h ttp :// publications.arl.org/Responsible-Conduct-Research-Training -SPEC-Kit-336>. 18. Kennedy MR, Brancolini KR. Academic librarian re search: a survey of attitudes, involvement, and perceived capabilities. Coll Res Lib. 2012 Sep;73(5):431M8. 19. Kennedy M. Results from librarian survey on research capacities [Internet]. Message to: Kristine Alpi. 2014 Jan 13. 20. Martyniak C, Keith B. SPEC Kit 315: leave and professional development benefits. Association of Research Libraries; 2009. 21. Berg SA, Jacobs HLM, Cornwall D. Academic librarians and research: a study of Canadian library administrator perspectives. Coll Res Lib. 2013 Nov;74(6):560-72.
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
22. Sassen C, Wahl D. Fostering research and publication in academic libraries. Coll Res Lib. 2014 Jul;75(4):458-91. 23. Hutcherson L. My NCBI curriculum vitae web applica tion: SciENcv. NLM Tech Bull [Internet], 2013 SepOct;(394):e3 [cited 10 Mar 2014]. < http://www.nlm .nih .gov/pubs/techbull/sol3/sol3_sciencv.html>.
AUTHORS' AFFILIATIONS Emily S. Mazure, MSI, AHIP, [email protected], Bio medical Research Liaison Li brarian, Medical Center Library & Archives, Duke University, DUMC 3702, Durham, NC 27710; Kristine M. Alpi, MLS, MPH, AHIP, kmalpi@ncsu .edu, Director, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Library of Veterinary Medicine, and Adjunct Assis tant Professor, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, North Carolina State University, 1060 William Moore Drive, Raleigh, NC 27607
Received April 2014; accepted November 2014
95
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.
