Facilitating collaboration and research in sex and gender differences and women's health: year one experiences.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut] On: 03 February 2015, At: 20:34 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Medical Reference Services Quarterly Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmrs20

Facilitating Collaboration and Research in Sex and Gender Differences and Women's Health: Year One Experiences a

a

a

Mary E. Edwards , Hannah F. Norton , Nancy Schaefer & Michele R. Tennant

a b

a

University of Florida Health Science Center Libraries , Gainesville , Florida , USA b

University of Florida Genetics Institute , Gainesville , Florida , USA Published online: 14 Oct 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Mary E. Edwards , Hannah F. Norton , Nancy Schaefer & Michele R. Tennant (2014) Facilitating Collaboration and Research in Sex and Gender Differences and Women's Health: Year One Experiences, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 33:4, 408-427, DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2014.957084 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2014.957084

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 20:34 03 February 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 33(4):408–427, 2014 Published with license by Taylor & Francis ISSN: 0276-3869 print=1540-9597 online DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2014.957084

Facilitating Collaboration and Research in Sex and Gender Differences and Women’s Health: Year One Experiences


MARY E. EDWARDS, HANNAH F. NORTON, and NANCY SCHAEFER University of Florida Health Science Center Libraries, Gainesville, Florida, USA

MICHELE R. TENNANT University of Florida Health Science Center Libraries; and University of Florida Genetics Institute, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Librarians at the University of Florida Health Science Center Libraries partnered with faculty to promote awareness of and access to research on women’s health and sex and gender resources in an outreach project funded by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. The project featured elements that facilitated cross-disciplinary collaboration (using CoLAB Planning Series1, or CoLABs), instruction to various groups (including faculty, undergraduate students, graduate students, and professional students), collection development, and information dissemination. Librarians leveraged existing partnerships with faculty and built new ones. Success in this project demonstrates that libraries can partner effectively with their faculty on emerging trends and new initiatives. KEYWORDS Collaboration, gender differences in health, health sciences libraries, outreach, sex differences in health, women’s health

# Mary E. Edwards, Hannah F. Norton, Nancy Schaefer, and Michele R. Tennant Received: July 25, 2014; Revised: August 7, 2014; Accepted: August 11, 2014. Address correspondence to Mary E. Edwards, University of Florida Health Science Center Libraries, P.O. Box 100206, Gainesville, FL 32610-0206. E-mail: [email protected] 408

Facilitating Collaboration in Sex and Gender Differences

409


INTRODUCTION Throughout history, male disease presentation, prognosis, and response to therapy have been considered standard and have thus shaped medical understanding and scientific thinking.1,2 The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research on Women’s Health (ORWH) and National Library of Medicine (NLM) are committed to changing the status quo via policy changes, the creation of resources for researchers and consumers, and funding various entities to engage in outreach projects. One of these opportunities funds library outreach projects to raise awareness of and access to research in the areas of women’s health and sex=gender differences in health. Overarching goals for these projects mirror those of the NIH Strategic Plan for Women’s Health Research: increase sex differences research in basic science studies; incorporate findings of sex=gender differences in the design and application of new technologies, medical devices, and therapeutic drugs; actualize personalized prevention, diagnostics, and therapeutics for girls and women; create strategic alliances and partnerships to maximize the domestic and global impact of women’s health research; develop and implement new communication and social networking technologies to increase understanding and appreciation of women’s health and wellness research; and employ innovative strategies to build a welltrained, diverse, and vigorous women’s health research workforce.3 The University of Florida’s (UF) Health Science Center Library (HSCL), having been awarded a project contract, has made a commitment to some of these same goals, undertaking a seven-part outreach effort. This article will describe the activities of project year one, including evaluation results where available. Over the last 40 years, policies regarding research that include both sexes have shifted. In the 1970s, several high profile instances of women and their pregnancies being negatively affected by exposure to drugs brought about some of these changes. Thalidomide, a drug used to treat morning sickness, caused thousands of birth deformities and fetal deaths.4 Another drug, DES (diethylstilbestrol), which was used to prevent miscarriages, led to high rates of infertility and vaginal cancers in the daughters and testicular cysts in the sons of women taking DES.5 In 1977, as a result of these extremely adverse drug effects, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned women of child-bearing potential from participating in Phase 1 and early Phase 2 clinical trials. Although the FDA policy did not exclude women from participating in all clinical trials, in practice researchers and Institutional Review Boards tended to do so.6 This ban was enforced for 13 years until the mandate was changed in 1993, removing the ban on women participating in Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies. That same year, the NIH Revitalization Act required the inclusion of women in all clinical


410

M. E. Edwards et al.

research and the analysis of results by sex for Phase 3 clinical trials. Eight years later, in 2001, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published the report ‘‘Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?’’ in which they described the need for research studying sex differences and their impacts on health.7 Previous policies concentrated on biological sex in human studies, but in 2014 the NIH announced policies requiring funding applicants to report their plans for balancing male and female cells and animals in preclinical studies. This new requirement will be enforced unless inclusion of both sexes is unwarranted as based upon rigorously defined exceptions. The NIH plans to implement these policies in phases beginning in October 2014.8 As the pendulum continues to shift towards the thoughtful consideration of sex differences in health, the ORWH has partnered with NLM to provide libraries with funding opportunities for outreach and fostering collaborations in the area of women’s health and sex=gender differences in health. The contract mechanism for such projects requires inclusion of non-library partners in contract proposals. Liaison librarians at UF HSCL met this requirement by using existing professional relationships with campus researchers to build a variety of partnerships between librarians and faculty from the Health Science Center (Colleges of Medicine and Public Health & Health Professions), main campus (Department of Biology and a new program offering a minor in Health Disparities), and interdisciplinary units (UF Genetics Institute and Center for Women’s Studies and Gender Research). The two purposes these partnerships served most directly were promoting collaboration across campus units and increasing awareness of the issue via class and other presentations. To facilitate cross-disciplinary collaboration, the library hosted two ‘‘Collaborating with Strangers’’ (CoLAB) workshops at which researchers shared information on projects, research, and resources on sex and gender differences in biomedicine and health with interdisciplinary colleagues. To increase awareness of sex and gender differences in medicine and health care, librarians presented basic concepts and resources to various audiences, from undergraduate classes in disciplines as varied as genetics and women’s studies to graduate students (students in the Genetics and Genomics and Interdisciplinary PhD programs) to junior faculty in a clinical and translational research course. A third goal of this project was to enhance access to existing and upcoming research in these subject areas. To accomplish this goal, the project funded open access article publishing for UF authors and additions to the HSCL’s electronic and—to a lesser extent—print collections. Finally, information on resources in the disciplines and the UF outreach efforts was disseminated at library and scientific conferences.


411


BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW The need for research focusing on women’s health and sex=gender differences in health is well represented in the literature. The forthcoming NIH policies on sex equity in animal model and cellular research8 indicate a clear need and regulatory support for research that examines sex and gender differences and their influences on human health. In their editorial on why research on sex differences and similarities is important, Clayton and Joseph describe sex differences research as ‘‘a science that entails comparing and contrasting scientific data between the sexes in order to understand how these factors affect health.’’9 This generic definition could describe both animal and human model research in a variety of disciplines and fields. In fact, sex differences research is not the domain of any one specialty, but it is relevant to basic science research, translational and clinical science, and several social sciences. It applies to various scientific and medical specialties. Clayton and Joseph note that the rigor of scientific studies can be enhanced when researchers consider sex as a variable in designing and analyzing studies.9 Incorporating sex or gender as a variable in both graduate level science education and clinical=health professions professional training may encourage further sex and gender differences research.7 Several studies examining the inclusion of women’s health=gender medicine in the medical curriculum10–12 and in the basic and translational sciences13,14 have been published in the past five years. Medical=health sciences librarians have traditionally been involved with instruction and research on their campuses.15–19 This experience and their image as relatively free of disciplinary bias enable them to provide outreach and support for women’s health and sex=gender research. Among the mechanisms librarians have used for outreach and support is the liaison model, which has become popular, particularly at the University of Florida Health Science Center Library.20,21 Using a well-developed liaison program can facilitate collaboration; it has done so among HSCL liaisons, as they serve interdisciplinary programs and must collaborate to meet the needs of users. This is also the case within the greater Health Science Center (HSC) community, as liaisons assist in the planning and implementation of courseintegrated library presentations and assignments. The dynamics of working in teams are important to the success of this project in terms of the project team’s internal functioning, team members’ methods of working with faculty member partners, and the team’s work with the university community at large. There is support for the idea that libraries can play an important role in interdisciplinary team research.22–24 While the concept of librarians as vital team members is not new, the research on how teams function and the skills needed for successful teams is emerging due to a growing emphasis on ‘‘team science’’ and cross- and inter-disciplinary

412


collaborations.25–28 Understanding how effective interdisciplinary collaborations perform and how libraries and librarians function within those teams is an important consideration for this outreach project that requires librarians to partner with their users. Garcia-Milian et al. describe a similar interdisciplinary collaboration in which librarians played a key role and identify characteristics librarians need to succeed on team projects: inclusive thinking, strong communication, perseverance in overcoming obstacles, willingness and ability to adapt, and leadership skills.26


Setting Successfully competing for funding and implementing an outreach project requires strong relationships with library users, flexibility, teamwork, and innovation. With 16 colleges, more than 150 research centers and institutes, over 4,000 faculty members, and more than 50,000 students, the University of Florida offers an important nexus for the investigation and application of information on sex- and gender-specific medicine. As a research-focused institution with diverse and wide-ranging research programs, UF has begun interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary collaboration in many areas but could improve similar collaboration between humanities and social sciences and the Health Science Center. The libraries are well-suited to facilitate such collaboration because they are well-known, neutral entities that serve the campus community as a whole. The Health Science Center Library, part of the George A. Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida, is an active partner in the education, research, training, and clinical needs of the six Health Science Center colleges (Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health & Health Professions, Veterinary Medicine), and their affiliated centers and institutes. With a strong liaison librarian program in place since 1998,20 the HSCL integrates instruction on information skills and resources into curricula across the Health Science Center, provides support to basic sciences and clinical researchers through both document access and expert searching services, and strives to facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations by connecting researchers with one another.

THE PROJECT Overall Project Description The HSCL project, officially known as the Women’s Health and Sex=Gender Differences Outreach Project, leveraged the strengths of the HSCL and its partners in order to work toward the goals of increasing sex differences research in basic sciences and employing innovative strategies to build a



413

well-trained, diverse, and vigorous sex and gender differences research workforce. In order to achieve these goals, HSCL librarians undertook a seven-part outreach effort, focusing primarily on awareness building and skills development on the part of UF students and faculty in the basic sciences and health professions and secondarily on increasing access to existing literature in women’s health and sex and gender differences research. The project objectives and activities were as follows: student training, faculty training and professional development, facilitating collaboration, open access publishing, collection building, information dissemination through resources guides, and sharing project results through professional associations. Each of the seven project activities can be categorized into the following areas: instruction (student, staff, and faculty), collaboration, and access to resources. Each of these categories is detailed below, including the results of available evaluations. See Figure 1 for an overview of the project activities and timeline.

Instruction Librarians partnered with faculty from the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Medicine, and Public Health & Health Professions to train students in the use of the Women’s Health Resources Portal while introducing them to the importance of sex and gender differences in research and health care. The project team expected that

FIGURE 1 Project timeline.


414


introducing students to these concepts and resources early in their careers would increase awareness of the importance of sex differences in multiple areas of research and patient care while leading some students to focus on women’s health and sex differences research. Several teaching efforts focused on basic science students, including undergraduate genetics students, genetics and genomics PhD students, and students in the Interdisciplinary PhD in Biomedical Sciences (IDP) program. Other teaching efforts focused on future clinicians and clinical researchers, including undergraduate students minoring in health disparities in society, undergraduate students in the Rural and Urban Underserved Medicine (RUUM) program, and second-year medical students. The team first presented on this topic in the second-year medical curriculum in a session on breaking bad news in their Essentials in Patient Care course. Students in this course were introduced to the Women’s Health Resources Portal and to research on gendered preferences for giving and receiving bad news, which they were then expected to incorporate into their role-play of delivering an Alzheimer’s diagnosis to a simulated patient. That exercise was videotaped and reviewed by faculty and students together. Viewers were asked to note differences in communication styles between male and female students and within individual students toward male and female patients. For the undergraduate genetics class, a librarian who has long been integrated into the course included in her instruction to students a presentation of the Women’s Health Resources Portal and an introduction of the MeSH term ‘‘Sex Characteristics.’’ Students’ term project in this course is to present a research-quality poster on an assigned genetic disorder.29 Students who were assigned disorders that exhibit sex and gender differences were required to include that information in their poster and to be able to defend that information when queried by the instructors and their classmates. Graduate level Genetics and Genomics and IDP students were provided with similar instruction, although they did not have a related course assignment. In addition to providing instruction for students, the team also partnered with faculty from the Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) to incorporate the issues of women’s health and sex=gender differences into the annual Introduction to Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR) course attended by graduate students and junior clinical faculty. The ICTR consists of two weeks of daily lectures and small group work. Each small group selects a specific topic (based on the course theme) and develops a mock research proposal. The HSCL’s role in the ICTR course for several years has consisted of a presentation or two on library resources and assisting the small groups with their research proposal. Since the leader of the ICTR was a project collaborator, the theme for the course in the first year of funding was women’s health=sex or gender differences in health. The library orientation for the course included discussion of the Women’s Health Resources Portal, and the Portal was emphasized during the small group sessions.


415


Facilitating Collaboration Collaborating with HSCL users was a funding requirement from the sponsoring agencies. One of the project objectives focused on increasing interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers studying various aspects of women’s health and sex and gender differences in health. The team chose to offer two ‘‘Collaborating with Strangers’’ workshops (CoLABs), a novel tool for encouraging researchers to have conversations about their research interests with each other. Facilitated by Bess de Farber, the inventor of this trademarked process,30,31 and aided by the Libraries’ CoLAB workshop project team, these workshops were thematically designed to target those faculty and students researching or teaching topics related to sex and gender differences in medical research. Each workshop was two hours in length. After an introduction to the theories of collaborative and creative development processes and an overview of the sex and gender differences project scope, participants created individual profiles to facilitate their one-on-one speed meetings with the other participants. These profiles were shared during the speed meetings and helped focus each three-minute conversation, intended to reveal shared research interests, projects, and=or academic goals; skill sets and knowledge that participants could bring to a research collaboration; and names and contact information for potential collaborators. At the end of each workshop, participants shared individual ideas and thoughts on such questions as: ‘‘What synergies or connections did you discover?’’ ‘‘What other things do you want to learn or know?’’ ‘‘What are your next steps?’’ A secure (login required) web page featuring headshots, profiles, and contact information provided a means for following up on connections, learning about additional ‘‘strangers’’ from the two sessions, and enabling more connections and conversations. The CoLAB workshops were evaluated by external evaluators from the Collaborative Assessment and Program Evaluation Services (CAPES), which is administered by the University of Florida’s College of Education. The evaluation methodology included qualitative data (from observations, interviews, and brainstorming sessions) and mixed quantitative and qualitative data from survey results. CoLAB evaluation surveys included seven items—a blend of Likert-type questions and open-ended questions—aimed at gathering feedback on the general purpose and usefulness of the workshops. A total of 19 participants attended the first CoLAB session (April 30, 2013), and the second CoLAB session (September 10, 2013) included a total of 22 participants. (See Table 1 for a breakdown of participation for the two CoLABs.) Responses to the survey questions from both the first and second CoLAB sessions will be addressed in combination, unless otherwise noted. When asked to provide an overall evaluation of the workshop, a majority (92.6%) of participants responded with either ‘‘excellent’’ (36.6%) or ‘‘good’’

416


TABLE 1 Summary of CoLAB Participation Date


April 30, 2013 September 10, 2013 Total

Faculty

Post-docs

Graduate students

Undergraduate students

Other

International

10 8 18

1 1 2

5 8 13

2 3 5

1 3 4

3 5 8

(56.1%); no respondents indicated ‘‘poor’’ (see Table 2). The majority (70.7%) of attendees indicated they would attend such a workshop again, while 85.3% would recommend this collaboration process to others. Respondents were also asked to evaluate personal workshop outcomes on a 5-point Likert scale with options ranging from ‘‘Strongly Agree’’ to ‘‘Strongly Disagree.’’ More than half (70.7%) of the respondents felt more confident in their ability to approach strangers following the workshops (see Table 3). The majority of respondents (75.6%) also reported feeling more comfortable with people in other disciplines following the workshop. When respondents were asked to describe if and how the CoLAB workshop helped them access new resources and grant-seeking information and gain knowledge, open-ended responses varied between general (‘‘some potential collaborations across very disparate fields and in unexpected places’’) and specific (‘‘yes, happy to hear of new breast imaging technique’’). Overall, 58.5% of responses to this question were deemed positive by the evaluator. The remaining 41.5% of responses were either TABLE 2 CoLAB Evaluation: Summary of Responses Item

N

Length of Collaborating With Strangers workshop Too long 0 Adequate 33 Too short 3 No response 5 Overall evaluation of workshop Excellent 15 Good 23 Fair 1 Poor 0 No response 2 Would you attend a workshop like this again? Yes 29 No 4 Maybe 1 No response 7 Would you recommend this collaboration process to other students=faculty? Yes 35 No 2 No response 4

Percentage 0 80.5 7.3 12.2 36.6 56.1 2.4 0 4.9 70.7 9.8 2.4 17.1 85.4 4.9 9.8

417

Facilitating Collaboration in Sex and Gender Differences TABLE 3 CoLAB Evaluation: Summary of Likert Responses


Item

Percentage

N

I feel more confident in my ability to approach people I don’t know. Strongly agree 12 Agree 17 Neutral 9 Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 1 No response 2 I am more comfortable with people in other disciplines. Strongly agree 12 Agree 19 Neutral 7 Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 1 No response 2

29.3 41.5 22.0 0 2.4 4.9 29.3 46.3 17.1 0 2.4 4.9

mixed (positive and negative), negative, or were missing (see Table 4). Examples of positive comments include: ‘‘The ideas from the non-related disciplines were very helpful. It was like ‘out of the box’ thinking’’ and ‘‘it helped me meet many people I would have never met and talk to people doing research pertaining to gender and sex.’’ When asked about the most useful part of the workshop, one respondent commented: ‘‘seeing the breadth of people with an interest in this topic. Sharing info about some of my projects.’’ This response encapsulates the team’s purpose in including CoLAB sessions as part of the funding activity: ‘‘to help bring together researchers in a variety of disciplines with an interest in women’s health and sex and gender differences.’’ In fact, 56.1% of respondents answered that interacting with others was the most useful part of the workshop. At the conclusion of the CoLAB sessions, participants were asked to write and share notes about three topics: synergies and connections found in the workshop, their next steps, and what they learned. Responses indicated that TABLE 4 CoLAB Evaluation: Summary of Open-Ended Responses Item

N

Did the CoLAB facilitation process help you access new resources, knowledge, and=or grant seeking information? If so, describe. Positive 24 Mixed 7 Negative 2 No response 8 What was the most useful part of the workshop and why? Interaction 23 Other 9 No response 9

Percentage

58.5 17.1 4.9 19.5 56.1 22.0 22.0


418


participants found people with the same research interests and made cross-disciplinary connections, including those between the hard sciences and the humanities. Several participants noted that they intended to follow up via e-mail about resources and collaborations with the researchers they had met. When asked ‘‘what did you learn,’’ several comments paralleled the purpose not only of the CoLAB session but of the project as a whole: ‘‘learned about the women’s health portal,’’ ‘‘the Center for Women’s Studies and Gender Research could be a hub for intellectual=research exchange of these issues,’’ and ‘‘finding overlapping interest in unexpected places—humanities connections with social and health sciences.’’ Data from the two CoLAB sessions suggest that participants benefitted from the workshops and made potential connections with other researchers interested in women’s health and sex=gender differences. Encouraging partnerships and cross-disciplinary collaborations was an important aspect of the project that was fulfilled in part by including these two CoLAB sessions among funding activities.

Access to Research and Resources Library activities designed to increase access to research and resources focused on supporting information dissemination via an open access publishing fund, building the collection in relevant areas, creating a resource guide, and sharing the project results at various professional conferences, both of libraries and in non-library, subject-specific venues. Open access. The UF Libraries have been successful with open access (OA) initiatives in previous years. In July 2010, the Libraries began an 18-month pilot project funding authors for publishing in OA and hybrid journals. This general program continued until January 2013, when budget cuts necessitated its discontinuation. Based upon the success of this program as evidenced by the number of HSC faculty utilizing the funds, the project team included an open access publishing fund as part of the outreach project. Procedures and documentation were adapted from the general OA project, with the stipulation that articles pertain to women’s health or sex or gender differences in health. In the first year of the project, seven peer-reviewed journal articles on sex and gender differences research or women’s health research by UF authors were funded and subsequently published (see Appendix 1 for a list of these articles). Article topics range from gender differences in seeking care for sexually-transmitted diseases to potential biomarkers for androgen exposure in mosquito fish to prevalence of drugs in pregnancy-associated deaths. Journal subject specialties ranged from microbiology to musculoskeletal disorders to forensic sciences. The team’s $9,442.75 resulted in seven articles on the target topics being publicly available to the world beyond UF. Once again, the librarians’



419

existing relationships—this time with other librarians and library departments on campus—enabled the project team to adapt the established procedures and application form from the earlier OA funding program and thus greatly facilitated the team’s work in this activity. With these logistical concerns basically worked out, the current project team could turn its attention to deciding maximum funding amounts to fit into the proposed OA budget and determining which articles were truly relevant to sex and gender differences in health or women’s health. Utilizing existing relationships with other librarians on campus, especially project partners in the social sciences and humanities, team members e-mailed information on the availability of the funding and distributed a trifold brochure at CoLABs and class and conference presentations. Having built the OA funding off the early project’s system and documents so soon after the end of that project, however, entailed more time than anticipated clarifying that the current project’s funding was only for publications on women’s health or sex or gender differences in health. Setting up the funding mechanism took longer than expected, but the publicity mentioned only closing date (not start date) so team members did not need to reprint brochures or reword the draft announcement of the funding availability. Another unexpected obstacle derived from e-mail system over-vigilance on the word ‘‘sex’’ in the e-mail subject heading for both the open access and the CoLAB advertisements, which consequently ended up in some junk or spam folders without appearing in the inboxes of potentially interested readers. Some potential applicants felt that they did not have sufficient time to get articles completed and accepted in the time between their learning of the fund and its application deadline. Despite the relatively short window between the distribution of e-mails on the project’s OA funding and the application closing date, sufficient numbers of relevant applications were submitted to expend this project’s budget for this purpose. Responses of those applying too late indicated determination to take notice and act faster in the event of future funding. Having a project team with varied subject expertise and an open space on the application form for the applicant to explain how the publication related to sex or gender differences or women’s health facilitated determination of each article’s eligibility in terms of its relevance to the topic. Collection management. Throughout the project period, the existing HSCL collections in the areas of sex and gender differences and women’s health were evaluated, and a list of materials to be purchased was created and updated. Because the project includes the separate but related elements of women’s health and sex and gender in health, the selection was balanced in terms of topic so as not to prioritize one area over another. In addition to building the collection, project team members added links to existing electronic collection materials to the project’s LibGuide to better promote existing materials. This process uncovered a linking error in UF’s catalog for the


420


Journal of Women’s Health, which was subsequently corrected in the library catalog and the link added to the project LibGuide, thereby improving access to these materials. A final wish list was developed, the materials purchased, and links to the largely electronic resources added to the library catalog and the LibGuide. Final acquisitions included both monographs and e-journal backfiles. A full list of materials purchased can be found in Appendix 2. The relatively short duration of the funding and the HSCL’s acquisition procedures and schedule made for tight deadlines for this aspect of the project, but partnerships with the campus library’s technical and financial services personnel enabled project team members to complete all final-selection purchases and expend the budget allotted for collection development within the period. To ensure that these materials would be found, all materials purchased was added to the library catalog and to the project LibGuide to provide as many access points as possible. Resource guide. The library uses the Springshare LibGuide platform for designing resource guides for a variety of purposes, so creating a resource guide for women’s health and sex=gender differences was a logical progression. The team created a guide with information about the project (including links to the Women’s Health Resources Portal at and the Science of Sex and Gender in Human Health online CE courses at ), information about the open access publishing fund, links to relevant materials already in the collection or generally available but not necessarily well-advertised or easy to find, and literature search strategies. This last feature was included to help researchers— especially those new to the field—avoid the frustration of the many irrelevant citations that result from searches using ‘‘sex’’ as a keyword. LibGuides is a good platform for this type of resource guide because it can be easily and regularly updated as the project progresses. Statistics from the LibGuide software indicate that while the guide received some views (207), future work on this project could include better promotion of this resource. Presentations at professional meetings. One of the final project goals was to share results through various professional associations. As such, project planning, implementation, and results were disseminated through conference presentations in 2013. The team presented a poster on librarians as collaborators at the Medical Library Association (MLA) annual meeting, two posters at the Special Library Association (SLA) meeting (one about collaboration and one about the project in general), and a poster focusing on the resource=research access project activities and a contributed presentation about the project in general at the annual meeting of the Southern Chapter of MLA. In addition to presenting at these regional and


421

national professional conferences, the team also presented at college, departmental, and institutional research symposia on campus including those of the College of Medicine, the College of Public Health & Health Professions, and the Emerging Pathogens Institute. This second group of presentations enabled team members to share information about the project and OWRH resources and interact with users as colleagues in their settings. Presenting alongside the academic faculty demonstrates that librarians are also faculty, who also collaborate, perform research, and write grants.


DISCUSSION Study limitations related to evaluation and generalizability should be noted. Although the team used counts and other simple means to track project progress during the first year, the CoLABS were the only aspects of the project to receive systematic evaluation. In project year two, the team hired an external evaluator to work with the team to develop and implement an evaluation plan for each aspect of the project, and for the project overall. A related limitation involved CoLAB participation. Although the CoLABs were advertised to the entire Health Science Center as well as to subject-related units on main campus, attendance was not representative of the diversity of disciplines with a potential interest in this topic. Likewise, clinical sciences were more highly represented than basic sciences. As such, evaluation results may be skewed, decreasing their utility. In year two, the project has planned two additional CoLABs to help increase the level and diversity of participation. Additionally, the CoLAB evaluation plan for year two includes selected participant interviews to gather more detailed, qualitative feedback. Finally, it is unclear how generalizable the UF components of this project are to other institutions. Every institution has a different cohort of investigators, organizational infrastructure, and researchers’ relationship with the library. While these activities translated well in the environment at the University of Florida, there may be other components that would work better elsewhere, in addition to or instead of the activities implemented by this project team. Groups attempting similar projects should have strong relationships with clients already in place and a good understanding of clients’ needs and the local environment. Overall, project data (i.e., activities completed, funds expended, and formal CoLAB evaluation) demonstrate that the project team has been active in all aspects of the project. The project team has exposed students, young researchers, and professionals in multiple fields to the issues of sex and gender differences and women’s health through their presentations in courses and at multiple professional venues. Feedback from the CoLAB sessions was positive and indicated that these project activities had resulted in information-sharing, perspective-widening, and new potential collaborators.

422


Resources were added to the HSCL’s print and electronic collections, and the results of UF research made publicly available to the wider world through this project’s open access funding. Having successfully completed year one, the team is currently completing project year two with another round of funding. In year two, the project includes the same core elements from year one but expands collaborations to new groups and introduces a sex= gender differences workshop to the schedule of activities. The team looks forward to analyzing pending data, sharing the results, and using them to inform future work on this project.


CONCLUSION The library has leveraged existing partnerships with faculty and built new ones to introduce and heighten awareness of these areas of research and practice. It also used CoLABs to bring together researchers from various non-medical, clinical, and biomedical research backgrounds. Success in this project demonstrates that libraries can effectively partner with their faculty on emerging trends and new initiatives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Linda C. Butson, Consumer Health & Community Outreach Librarian, for her invaluable assistance in writing the proposal and designing and implementing the project. We would also like to thank Bess de Farber, Grants Manager, Smathers Libraries, for developing and facilitating the CoLAB series and working with us to incorporate CoLABs into the project, and Christine Fruin, Scholarly Communications Librarian, for assisting with the open access publishing fund and allowing us to use and modify policies developed for the general fund.

FUNDING This project has been funded in part with federal funds from the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, under contract #HHSN316-2012-00028-W.

REFERENCES 1. Arnold, A.P. ‘‘Promoting the Understanding of Sex Differences to Enhance Equity and Excellence in Biomedical Science.’’ Biology of Sex Differences 1, no. 1 (2010): 1–3.



423

2. Beery, A.K., and I. Zucker. ‘‘Sex Bias in Neuroscience and Biomedical Research.’’ Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 35, no. 3 (2011): 565–572. 3. Office of Research on Women’s Health. ‘‘Moving into the Future with New Dimensions and Strategies: A Vision for 2020 for Women’s Health Research.’’ 2010. http://orwh.od.nih.gov/research/strategicplan/ORWH_StrategicPlan2020_ Vol1.pdf. 4. McBride, W.G. ‘‘Thalidomide and Congenital Abnormalities.’’ Lancet 2, no. 721 (1961): 1358. 5. Colborn, T., F.S.V. Saal, and A.M. Soto. ‘‘Developmental Effects of EndocrineDisrupting Chemicals in Wildlife and Humans.’’ Environmental Health Perspectives 101, no. 5 (1993): 378–384. 6. McCarthy, C.R. ‘‘Historical Background of Clinical Trials Involving Women and Minorities.’’ Academic Medicine 69, no. 9 (1994): 695–698. 7. ‘‘Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?’’ Journal of Women’s Health Gender-Based Medicine 10, no. 5 (2001): 433–439. 8. Clayton, J.A., and F.S. Collins. ‘‘Policy: NIH to Balance Sex in Cell and Animal Studies.’’ Nature 509, no. 7500 (2014): 282–283. 9. Clayton, J.A., and S. Joseph. ‘‘Why Research Sex Differences and Similarities?’’ Medical Physics 40, no. 4 (2013): 1–2. 10. Hochleitner, M., U. Nachtschatt, and H. Siller. ‘‘How Do We Get Gender Medicine into Medical Education?’’ Health Care for Women International 34, no. 1 (2013): 3–13. 11. Hsieh, E., M. Nunez-Smith, and J.B. Henrich. ‘‘Needs and Priorities in Women’s Health Training: Perspectives from an Internal Medicine Residency Program.’’ Journal of Women’s Health 22, no. 8 (2013): 667–672. 12. Templeton, K. ‘‘Education in Women’s Health and Sex and Gender Medicine.’’ Journal of Women’s Health 22, no. 8 (2013): 658. 13. Miller, V.M. ‘‘Why are Sex and Gender Important to Basic Physiology and Translational and Individualized Medicine?’’ American Journal of Physiology. Heart and Circulatory Physiology 306, no. 6 (2014): H781–788. 14. Lee, J.S., K. Bertakis, F.J. Meyers et al. ‘‘Cardiovascular Disease in Women– Challenges Deserving a Comprehensive Translational Approach.’’ Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research 2, no. 3 (2009): 251–255. 15. Brandenburg, M.D., A. Doss, and T.E. Frederick. ‘‘Evaluation of a Library Outreach Program to Research Labs.’’ Medical Reference Services Quarterly 29, no. 3 (July–September 2010): 249–259. 16. Cooper, I.D., and J.A. Crum. ‘‘New Activities and Changing Roles of Health Sciences Librarians: A Systematic Review, 1990–2012.’’ Journal of the Medical Library Association 101, no. 4 (October 2013): 268–277. 17. Clairoux, N., S. Desbiens, M. Clar et al. ‘‘Integrating Information Literacy in Health Sciences Curricula: A Case Study from Quebec.’’ Health Information and Libraries Journal 30, no. 3 (2013): 201–211. 18. Duhon, L., and J. Jameson. ‘‘Health Information Outreach: A Survey of U.S. Academic Libraries, Highlighting a Midwestern University’s Experience.’’ Health Information and Libraries Journal 30, no. 2 (2013): 121–137. 19. Eldredge, J.D., K.M. Heskett, T. Henner, and J.P. Tan. ‘‘Current Practices in Library=Informatics Instruction in Academic Libraries Serving Medical Schools


424


in the Western United States: A Three-Phase Action Research Study.’’ BMC Medical Education 13 (2013): 119. 20. Tennant, M.R., L.C. Butson, M.E. Rezeau et al. ‘‘Customizing for Clients: Developing a Library Liaison Program from Need to Plan.’’ Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 89, no. 1 (January 2001): 8–20. 21. Tennant, M.R., T.T. Cataldo, P. Sherwill-Navarro, and R. Jesano. ‘‘Evaluation of a Liaison Librarian Program: Client and Liaison Perspectives.’’ Journal of the Medical Library Association 94, no.4 (October 2006): 402–409, e201–204. 22. Kent, A., and J.W. Perry. ‘‘The Library and the Research Team.’’ Special Libraries 47, no. 4 (1956): 156–161. 23. Humphreys, B.L. ‘‘Librarians and Collaborative Research. Toward a Better Scientific Base for Information Practice.’’ Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 84, no. 3 (July 1996): 433–436. 24. Smith, J.T. ‘‘Meta-Analysis: The Librarian as a Member of an Interdisciplinary Research Team.’’ Library Trends 45, no. 2 (1996): 265–279. 25. Fiore, S.M. ‘‘Interdisciplinarity as Teamwork — How the Science of Teams Can Inform Team Science.’’ Small Group Research 39, no. 3 (2008): 251–277. 26. Garcia-Milian, R., H.F. Norton, B. Auten et al. ‘‘Librarians as Part of Cross-Disciplinary, Multi-Institutional Team Projects: Experiences from the VIVO Collaboration.’’ Science and Technology Libraries 32, no. 2 (2013): 160–175. 27. Thompson, J. ‘‘Building Collective Communication Competence in Interdisciplinary Research Teams.’’ Journal of Applied Communication Research 37, no. 3 (2009): 278–297. 28. Martin, E.R. ‘‘Team Effectiveness in Academic Medical Libraries: A Multiple Case Study.’’ Journal of the Medical Library Association 94, no. 3 (July 2006): 271–278. 29. Tennant, M.R., M. Edwards, and M.M. Miyamoto. ‘‘Redesigning a LibraryBased Genetics Class Research Project through Instructional Theory and Authentic Experience.’’ Journal of the Medical Library Association 100, no. 2 (April 2012): 90–97. 30. de Farber, B. ‘‘Initial Steps to Create the Colab Planning Series1: Workshops Designed to Spark Collaborations and Creativity through Revealing and Leveraging Community Assets.’’ 2013. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00003505/00001. 31. de Farber, B. ‘‘Conditions and Guiding Principles: How to Produce Beneficial Colab Planning Series1 Workshop Results.’’ 2014. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00003847/ 00001.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mary E. Edwards, MLIS, EdD, AHIP ([email protected]) is Distance Education & Liaison Librarian, Biomedical and Health Information Services; Hannah F. Norton, MSIS, AHIP ([email protected]) is Reference & Liaison Librarian, Biomedical and Health Information Services; and Nancy Schaefer, MLIS, MA, AHIP ([email protected]) is Reference & Liaison Librarian, Biomedical and Health Information Services; all at University of Florida Health


425

Science Center Libraries, P.O. Box 100206, Gainesville, FL 32610-0206. Michele R. Tennant, PhD, MLIS, AHIP ([email protected]) is Assistant Director, University of Florida Health Science Center Libraries, P.O. Box 100206, Gainesville, FL 32610-0206; and Bioinformatics Librarian, University of Florida Genetics Institute, P.O. Box 103610, Gainesville, FL 32610-3610.


APPENDIX 1: ARTICLES FUNDED THROUGH THE UF WOMEN’S HEALTH AND SEX=GENDER DIFFERENCES OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING FUND Brockmeier, E., F. Yu, D.M. Amador, T.A. Bargar, and N.D. Denslow. ‘‘Custom Microarray Construction and Analysis for Determining Potential Biomarkers of Subchronic Androgen Exposure in the Eastern Mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki).’’ BMC Genomics 14 (September 28, 2013): 660. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852779/. Ebner, N.C., G.M. Maura, K. MacDonald, L. Westberg, and H. Fischer. ‘‘Oxytocin and Socioemotional Aging–Current Knowledge and Future Trends.’’ Frontiers in Human Neursocience 7 (2013): 487. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755210/. Hardt, N., T.D. Wong, M.J. Burt, R. Harrison, W. Winter, and J. Roth. ‘‘Prevalence of Prescription and Illicit Drugs in Pregnancy-Associated NonNatural Deaths of Florida Mothers, 1999–2005.’’ Journal of Forensic Sciences 58, no. 6 (November 2013): 1536–1541. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1111/1556-4029.12219/abstract;jsessionid=19E8483BA1399C4F00BF8A5A DCCE911E.f03t03. Hardt, N., J. Eliazar, M. Burt et al. ‘‘Use of a Prenatal Risk Screen to Predict Maternal Traumatic Pregnancy-Associated Death: Program and Policy Implications.’’ Women’s Health Issues 23, no. 3 (May–June 2013): e187– 193. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386713000200. Malek, A.M., C.H. Chang, D.B. Clark, and R.L. Cook. ‘‘Delay in Seeking Care for Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Young Men and Women Attending a Public STD Clinic.’’ The Open AIDS Journal 7 (2013): 7–13. http://www. benthamscience.com/open/toaidj/articles/V007/TOAIDJ130614002.pdf. Richards, T.S., A.E. Knowlton, and S.S. Grieshaber. ‘‘Chlamydia trachomatis Homotypic Inclusion Fusion is Promoted by Host Microtubule Trafficking.’’ BMC Microbiology 13 (2013): 185. http://www.biomedcentral. com/1471-2180/13/185/abstract. Valencia, C., L.L. Kindler, R.B. Fillingim, and S.Z. George. ‘‘Stability of Conditioned Pain Modulation in Two Musculoskeletal Pain Models: Investigating the Influence of Shoulder Pain Intensity and Gender.’’ BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 14 (2013): 182. http://www.biomedcentral.com/ 1471-2474/14/182.

426


APPENDIX 2: MATERIALS PURCHASED FOR THE HSCL COLLECTION


Monographs Clinical Gynecologic Oncology, 8th ed. DiSaia, P., and W. Creasman. Elsevier. 2012. Comprehensive Gynecology, 6th ed. Lentz, G.M., R.A. Robo, D.M. Gershenson, and V.L. Katz. Elsevier Mosby. 2012. Designing and Conducting Gender, Sex and Health Research. Oliffe, J.L., and L.J. Greaves, eds. Sage. 2011. The Female Brain, 2nd ed. Darlington, C.L. Taylor and Francis. 2010. Females Are Mosaics: X Inactivation and Sex Differences in Disease. Migeon, B. Oxford University Press. 2013. Gender Equity in Health: The Shifting Frontiers of Evidence and Action. Gita, S., and P. Ostlin. Routledge. 2010. Handbook of Clinical Gender Medicine. Schenck-Gustafsson, K. Karger. 2012. Hormones of the Limbic System. Litwack, G. Elsevier. 2010. Human Rights & Gender Equality in Health Sector Strategies: How to Assess Policy Coherence. World Health Organization. 2012. Issues in Health and Health Care Related to Race=Ethnicity, Immigration, SES, and Gender. Kronefield, J., ed. Emerald. 2013. Male and Female Infertility: Genetic Causes, Hormonal Treatments and Health Effects. Bjorn, G. Wiley. 2012. Manual of Gender Dermatology. Parish, L.C., S. Brenner, M. Ramos-e-Silva, and J.L. Parish. Jones & Bartlett. 2010. Multicultural Gender Roles: Applications for Mental Health and Education. Minville, M.L. Wiley. 2013. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies, 6th ed. Gabbe, S.G. Churchill= Livingstone=Elsevier. 2007. Pain in Women: A Clinical Guide. Bailey, A. Springer. 2013. Sex Differences and Implications for Translational Neuroscience Research: Workshop Summary. Pankevich, D.E., T. Wizemann, and B.M. Altevogt. Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders. National Academies Press. 2011. Sex Differences: Summarizing More than a Century of Scientific Research. Ellis, L. Psychology Press. 2012. Sex and Gender in Biomedicine: Theories, Methodologies, Results. Klinge, I., and C. Wiesemann, eds. University of Akron Press. 2011. Sex Hormones: Development, Regulation and Disorders. Hoffmann, A.R., ed. Nova Science. 2011. Studies on Women’s Health. Agarwal, A., N. Aziz, and B. Rizk, eds. Springer= Humana. 2012.


Electronic Journal Backfiles


Human Reproduction Update 2005-2012. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 1997-2012. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine 1982-1999.

427

Exploring sex and gender differences in sleep health: a Society for Women's Health Research Report.

Mentoring interdisciplinary research teams for the study of sex and gender differences in health and disease.

Sex and gender matter in health research: addressing health inequities in health research reporting.

[Sex and gender differences in pharmacotherapy].

[Sex and gender differences in cardiovascular prevention].

Differences in Collaboration Patterns across Discipline, Career Stage, and Gender.

A One Health overview, facilitating advances in comparative medicine and translational research.

Gender bias and sex-based differences in health care efficiency in Polish regions.

gender differences in youth suicidal behavior.

Sex and Gender Differences in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Sex and Gender Differences in Central Nervous System-Related Disorders.

Relevant Sex Appeals in Advertising: Gender and Commitment Context Differences.

Health nurses' experiences and attitudes regarding collaboration with dental personnel.

Innovations in translational sex and gender-sensitive tobacco research.

Why sex and gender matter in implementation research.

One year of Oncology Research and Treatment.

Gender Differences in Metabolism and Behavior: Influence of Sex Chromosomes and Hormones.

The European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC): experiences from a successful ERS Clinical Research Collaboration.

Clinical epidemiology of Alzheimer's disease: assessing sex and gender differences.

Collaboration: integrating practice and research in public health nursing.

Race and Gender Differences in Undergraduate Research Mentoring Structures and Research Outcomes.

Sex differences in health and mortality in Moscow and Denmark.

Collaboration on One Health: starting with students.

One Health: more than just collaboration.