Journal of Mental Health
ISSN: 0963-8237 (Print) 1360-0567 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ijmh20
The importance of knowing how to get things: information literacy and the healthcare professional Lipczynska Sonya To cite this article: Lipczynska Sonya (2014) The importance of knowing how to get things: information literacy and the healthcare professional, Journal of Mental Health, 23:3, 113-114 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2014.912748
Published online: 06 May 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 261
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ijmh20 Download by: [173.86.207.131]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 19:47
http://informahealthcare.com/jmh ISSN: 0963-8237 (print), 1360-0567 (electronic) J Ment Health, 2014; 23(3): 113–114 ! 2014 Shadowfax Publishing and Informa UK Limited. DOI: 10.3109/09638237.2014.912748
EDITORIAL
The importance of knowing how to get things: information literacy and the healthcare professional
Downloaded by [173.86.207.131] at 19:47 05 November 2015
-I understand you’re a man who knows how to get things. -I’m known to locate certain things from time to time. They seem to fall into my hands. Shawshank Redemption, Frank Darabont, 1994. For the sake of disclosure, I should immediately state that as a health librarian, information literacy is a topic close to my heart, particularly as a good part of my time is spent trying to impart these skills to students who have grown up with Google and the trove of delights this search engine can return with only a little effort on the part of the user. However, proper information literacy skills are, I believe, essential in healthcare. We all know that health information can shift, change and become defunct remarkably quickly: treatments like lobotomies or thalidomide were used within living memory with the best of intentions, although a quick skim of the available literature now would hopefully dissuade current healthcare professionals from using them in modern clinical settings. As attempts are made to provide the best treatment plans for patients, finding quality, up-to-date information can be crucial in working towards the best outcomes (Schmidt & Wykes, 2012). This isn’t to say that any new intervention or information should be implemented blindly, but that this new data can be evaluated in the context of current practice and patient needs (Maciver et al., 2013). Cobus (2008) claimed that the modern healthcare system is unprepared for the information age. In one sense, I don’t believe this to be true – the digital age has given us the ability to locate, disseminate and evaluate large amounts of information very quickly (see for example the range of information analysed in Slade et al. (2012)). This in turn leads to papers or reviews being generated more quickly, and ultimately, patients being treated quicker, using insight gained from a raft of multi-national authors. For example, compare ‘‘old-style’’ hand searching (sitting on the floor of the library, leafing through the indexes of hard-copy volumes of journals, to the new way (logging into an online journal from the location of your choice, and searching by keyword) (Wykes et al., 2013). However, as technology enables us to locate information faster and quicker and right at the point of need, we run the risk of losing key information skills, or making the assumption that these are less important now that so much data is so readily available online. Additionally, the rise of the internet is also now producing the ‘‘informed patient’’ (Henwood et al., 2003) – those who
have already researched their condition and symptoms online and may attend consultations with healthcare providers expecting collaboration or corroboration rather than information. Service users are also increasingly able to access costeffective online treatment plans, for example cognitive therapy or mindfulness programs (Andersson et al., 2013). Ennis et al. (2012) also warn that those unable to access this technology may be at a significant disadvantaged by this ‘‘digital divide’’. Whilst service user-led research can lead to new and useful perspectives for health professionals (Callard & Rose, 2012; Mason & Holt, 2012), there is a potential danger of patients misinterpreting online data, or being misinformed by other internet users (Chen et al., 2014). A study in 2006 also found that doctors found it difficult to handle patients who came in with their online research, which led to difficulties in communication (Ahmad et al., 2006). Being technologically literate as many patients may be, and being information literate are two different things, and a good understanding of the idea of information literacy could help healthcare providers manage their patients’ expectations and give advice about the kinds of information to look for. So, with all this in mind, what does it actually mean to be ‘‘information literate’’? Is it, as many students perceive the ability to navigate a fast-growing network of social media and other information resources (Price et al., 2011)? Does the ability to dig information from Google in three seconds equate to information literacy skills? Certainly among the classes of first year ‘‘digital native’’ undergraduates I teach, the prevailing attitude is that being information literate is being like Morgan Freeman’s character Red in the Shawshank Redemption, the person who knows how to get things. A journal article, an RCT about ECT, an official guideline document on the treatment of Alzheimer’s – it’s easy enough to fire up Google, or if we’re feeling a bit academic, Google Scholar, throw in a few keywords and reap the results. It’s part of the new need for speed, to find everything, everywhere, right this second. But in this speedy scything of information, there is also the danger of not paying full attention to evaluation criteria, or ignoring red flags. In a quick Google test with my own students (a rather unscientific straw poll), the majority of
Downloaded by [173.86.207.131] at 19:47 05 November 2015
114
Editorial
the group scanned the first page of results and picked out a link to the Corsodyl website as being reliable when searching for gum disease information. Only a few questioned the potential bias which could arise from trusting information from a company who produce anti-gum disease products. There are many definitions of information literacy which have been posited over the years, and the consensus seems to be that it reaches far beyond the basic skill of ‘‘finding things’’. It’s the process of sorting, sifting and critically evaluating information and, crucially, understanding why the process is important, when certain information is needed, and how to apply this information to practice (Kaplan et al., 2003; Saranto & Hovenga, 2004). As technology has moved forward, information literacy teaching has become embedded in many healthcare education courses, usually led by librarians. This in itself raises questions of who owns the information literacy agenda – should it be the preserve of information professionals, or should it be healthcare departments and Schools pushing the importance of information literacy skills (among staff as well as students) to keep up with new and emerging data? In my own opinion, the information literacy agenda should be a collaborative process between the School or organisation, and information professionals. Librarians can teach strategic search techniques, critical evaluation skills, methods of organising and documenting data. The Schools can contribute by helping out with tailoring these skills to specific subject areas, ensuring that classes are embedded within taught course curricula, or that sessions are provided for healthcare staff on a regular basis. Understanding the need for these skills, and impressing them on their students can go a long way. Typically, these kinds of skills are taught at undergraduate level, usually during the first and second years of a healthcare course. Evidence suggests that introducing these skills to young undergraduates is crucial as by the time students have reached their final course years, they tend to have developed their own information habits, and write off formal information literacy skills as irrelevant (Price et al., 2011). However, the flipside to teaching this concept to first and second years, particularly in clinical and healthcare courses (and again this is based on my own experience, and those of my colleagues), is that students tend not to equate information literacy with any healthcare-related activity beyond completing their assignments for that year. I’ve made efforts to introduce problem-based exercises based on clinical scenarios to map information literacy to potential real-life healthcare environments, but the immediate concerns of exams and lectures means that the library sessions for the students can often come low down the list of their priorities. The knock-on effect of this becomes clear when teaching similar sessions for graduate students or when seeing research students tackling their first major systematic review – it isn’t that the skills weren’t taught in the first place, or that the students didn’t take them in, but simply that at the time of teaching, they bore little relevance to the immediate study they were undertaking. Motivated graduate students and staff members will often seek out the services of a librarian when undertaking information work, but there are large numbers of healthcare staff whom we may never see, or who may not undertake information literacy work once they have passed the first year of their undergraduate course.
J Ment Health, 2014; 23(3): 113–114
Scott & Doughty (2012) say that ‘‘collating, maintaining and using information is a major part of the structure of contemporary societies’’. Simply then, I believe that information literacy should and could be a lifelong learning skill, one that is introduced at undergraduate level, but crucially which is then revisited at intervals afterwards, during the middle and final year of a course, during graduate study and/or the first years of professional clinical work and by healthcare staff being encouraged by line managers to take advantage of any information literacy courses offered by library services within the organisation. This approach is already practised in some organisations, and it allows the information literacy skills of staff to develop with their clinical and/or healthcare knowledge as they move through their education and into their professional careers. Lipczynska Sonya Institute of Psychiatry, Library, De Crespigny Park London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected]
References Ahmad F, Hudak PL, Levinson W, Bercovitz K, Hollenberg E. (2006). Are physicians ready for patients with Internet-based health information? J Med Internet Res, 8, e22. Andersson G, Hesser H, Hummerdal D, Bergman-Nordgren L, Carlbring P. (2013). A 3.5-year follow-up of Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for major depression. J Mental Health, 22, 155–64. Callard F, Rose D. (2012). The mental health strategy for Europe: Why service user leadership in research is indispensable. J Mental Health, 21, 219–26. Chen C-C, Yamada T, Smith J. (2014). An evaluation of healthcare information on the internet: The case of colorectal cancer prevention. Int J Environ Res Publ Health, 11, 1058–75. Cobus L. (2008). Integrating information literacy into the education of public health professionals: roles for librarians and the library. J Med Libr Assoc, 96, 28–33. Ennis L, Rose D, Denis M, Pandit N, Wykes T. (2012). Can’t surf, won’t surf: The digital divide in mental health. J Mental Health, 21, 395–403. Henwood F, Wyatt S, Hart A, Smith J. (2003). ‘Ignorance is bliss sometimes’: constraints on the emergence of the ‘informed patient’ in the changing landscapes of health information. Sociol Health Illn, 25, 589–607. Kaplan Jacobs S, Rosenfeld P, Haber J. (2003). Information literacy as the foundation for evidence-based practice in graduate nursing education: a curriculum-integrated approach. J Prof Nurs, 19, 320–8. Maciver D, Prior S, Forsyth K, Walsh M, Meiklejohn A, Irvine L, et al. (2013). Vocational rehabilitation: Facilitating evidence based practice through participatory action research. J Mental Health, 22, 183–90. Mason OJ, Holt R. (2012). Mental health and physical activity interventions: A review of the qualitative literature. J Mental Health, 21, 274–84. Price R, Becker K, Clark L, Collins S. (2011). Embedding information literacy in a first-year business undergraduate course. Stud High Educ, 36, 705–18. Saranto K, Hovenga EJ. (2004). Information literacy—what it is about?: Literature review of the concept and the context. Int J Med Inform, 73, 503–13. Schmidt U, Wykes T. (2012). E-mental health – a land of unlimited possibilities. J Mental Health, 21, 327–31. Scott A, Doughty C. (2012). ‘‘Confronted with paperwork’’: Information and documentation in peer support. J Mental Health, 21, 154–64. Slade M, Williams J, Bird V, leamy M, Le Boutillier C. (2012). Recovery grows up. J Mental Health, 21, 99–103. Wykes T, Lipczynska S, Guha M. (2013). The h-index, the citation rating, impact factors and the aspiring researcher. J Mental Health, 22, 467–73.
ISSN: 0963-8237 (Print) 1360-0567 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ijmh20
The importance of knowing how to get things: information literacy and the healthcare professional Lipczynska Sonya To cite this article: Lipczynska Sonya (2014) The importance of knowing how to get things: information literacy and the healthcare professional, Journal of Mental Health, 23:3, 113-114 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2014.912748
Published online: 06 May 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 261
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ijmh20 Download by: [173.86.207.131]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 19:47
http://informahealthcare.com/jmh ISSN: 0963-8237 (print), 1360-0567 (electronic) J Ment Health, 2014; 23(3): 113–114 ! 2014 Shadowfax Publishing and Informa UK Limited. DOI: 10.3109/09638237.2014.912748
EDITORIAL
The importance of knowing how to get things: information literacy and the healthcare professional
Downloaded by [173.86.207.131] at 19:47 05 November 2015
-I understand you’re a man who knows how to get things. -I’m known to locate certain things from time to time. They seem to fall into my hands. Shawshank Redemption, Frank Darabont, 1994. For the sake of disclosure, I should immediately state that as a health librarian, information literacy is a topic close to my heart, particularly as a good part of my time is spent trying to impart these skills to students who have grown up with Google and the trove of delights this search engine can return with only a little effort on the part of the user. However, proper information literacy skills are, I believe, essential in healthcare. We all know that health information can shift, change and become defunct remarkably quickly: treatments like lobotomies or thalidomide were used within living memory with the best of intentions, although a quick skim of the available literature now would hopefully dissuade current healthcare professionals from using them in modern clinical settings. As attempts are made to provide the best treatment plans for patients, finding quality, up-to-date information can be crucial in working towards the best outcomes (Schmidt & Wykes, 2012). This isn’t to say that any new intervention or information should be implemented blindly, but that this new data can be evaluated in the context of current practice and patient needs (Maciver et al., 2013). Cobus (2008) claimed that the modern healthcare system is unprepared for the information age. In one sense, I don’t believe this to be true – the digital age has given us the ability to locate, disseminate and evaluate large amounts of information very quickly (see for example the range of information analysed in Slade et al. (2012)). This in turn leads to papers or reviews being generated more quickly, and ultimately, patients being treated quicker, using insight gained from a raft of multi-national authors. For example, compare ‘‘old-style’’ hand searching (sitting on the floor of the library, leafing through the indexes of hard-copy volumes of journals, to the new way (logging into an online journal from the location of your choice, and searching by keyword) (Wykes et al., 2013). However, as technology enables us to locate information faster and quicker and right at the point of need, we run the risk of losing key information skills, or making the assumption that these are less important now that so much data is so readily available online. Additionally, the rise of the internet is also now producing the ‘‘informed patient’’ (Henwood et al., 2003) – those who
have already researched their condition and symptoms online and may attend consultations with healthcare providers expecting collaboration or corroboration rather than information. Service users are also increasingly able to access costeffective online treatment plans, for example cognitive therapy or mindfulness programs (Andersson et al., 2013). Ennis et al. (2012) also warn that those unable to access this technology may be at a significant disadvantaged by this ‘‘digital divide’’. Whilst service user-led research can lead to new and useful perspectives for health professionals (Callard & Rose, 2012; Mason & Holt, 2012), there is a potential danger of patients misinterpreting online data, or being misinformed by other internet users (Chen et al., 2014). A study in 2006 also found that doctors found it difficult to handle patients who came in with their online research, which led to difficulties in communication (Ahmad et al., 2006). Being technologically literate as many patients may be, and being information literate are two different things, and a good understanding of the idea of information literacy could help healthcare providers manage their patients’ expectations and give advice about the kinds of information to look for. So, with all this in mind, what does it actually mean to be ‘‘information literate’’? Is it, as many students perceive the ability to navigate a fast-growing network of social media and other information resources (Price et al., 2011)? Does the ability to dig information from Google in three seconds equate to information literacy skills? Certainly among the classes of first year ‘‘digital native’’ undergraduates I teach, the prevailing attitude is that being information literate is being like Morgan Freeman’s character Red in the Shawshank Redemption, the person who knows how to get things. A journal article, an RCT about ECT, an official guideline document on the treatment of Alzheimer’s – it’s easy enough to fire up Google, or if we’re feeling a bit academic, Google Scholar, throw in a few keywords and reap the results. It’s part of the new need for speed, to find everything, everywhere, right this second. But in this speedy scything of information, there is also the danger of not paying full attention to evaluation criteria, or ignoring red flags. In a quick Google test with my own students (a rather unscientific straw poll), the majority of
Downloaded by [173.86.207.131] at 19:47 05 November 2015
114
Editorial
the group scanned the first page of results and picked out a link to the Corsodyl website as being reliable when searching for gum disease information. Only a few questioned the potential bias which could arise from trusting information from a company who produce anti-gum disease products. There are many definitions of information literacy which have been posited over the years, and the consensus seems to be that it reaches far beyond the basic skill of ‘‘finding things’’. It’s the process of sorting, sifting and critically evaluating information and, crucially, understanding why the process is important, when certain information is needed, and how to apply this information to practice (Kaplan et al., 2003; Saranto & Hovenga, 2004). As technology has moved forward, information literacy teaching has become embedded in many healthcare education courses, usually led by librarians. This in itself raises questions of who owns the information literacy agenda – should it be the preserve of information professionals, or should it be healthcare departments and Schools pushing the importance of information literacy skills (among staff as well as students) to keep up with new and emerging data? In my own opinion, the information literacy agenda should be a collaborative process between the School or organisation, and information professionals. Librarians can teach strategic search techniques, critical evaluation skills, methods of organising and documenting data. The Schools can contribute by helping out with tailoring these skills to specific subject areas, ensuring that classes are embedded within taught course curricula, or that sessions are provided for healthcare staff on a regular basis. Understanding the need for these skills, and impressing them on their students can go a long way. Typically, these kinds of skills are taught at undergraduate level, usually during the first and second years of a healthcare course. Evidence suggests that introducing these skills to young undergraduates is crucial as by the time students have reached their final course years, they tend to have developed their own information habits, and write off formal information literacy skills as irrelevant (Price et al., 2011). However, the flipside to teaching this concept to first and second years, particularly in clinical and healthcare courses (and again this is based on my own experience, and those of my colleagues), is that students tend not to equate information literacy with any healthcare-related activity beyond completing their assignments for that year. I’ve made efforts to introduce problem-based exercises based on clinical scenarios to map information literacy to potential real-life healthcare environments, but the immediate concerns of exams and lectures means that the library sessions for the students can often come low down the list of their priorities. The knock-on effect of this becomes clear when teaching similar sessions for graduate students or when seeing research students tackling their first major systematic review – it isn’t that the skills weren’t taught in the first place, or that the students didn’t take them in, but simply that at the time of teaching, they bore little relevance to the immediate study they were undertaking. Motivated graduate students and staff members will often seek out the services of a librarian when undertaking information work, but there are large numbers of healthcare staff whom we may never see, or who may not undertake information literacy work once they have passed the first year of their undergraduate course.
J Ment Health, 2014; 23(3): 113–114
Scott & Doughty (2012) say that ‘‘collating, maintaining and using information is a major part of the structure of contemporary societies’’. Simply then, I believe that information literacy should and could be a lifelong learning skill, one that is introduced at undergraduate level, but crucially which is then revisited at intervals afterwards, during the middle and final year of a course, during graduate study and/or the first years of professional clinical work and by healthcare staff being encouraged by line managers to take advantage of any information literacy courses offered by library services within the organisation. This approach is already practised in some organisations, and it allows the information literacy skills of staff to develop with their clinical and/or healthcare knowledge as they move through their education and into their professional careers. Lipczynska Sonya Institute of Psychiatry, Library, De Crespigny Park London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected]
References Ahmad F, Hudak PL, Levinson W, Bercovitz K, Hollenberg E. (2006). Are physicians ready for patients with Internet-based health information? J Med Internet Res, 8, e22. Andersson G, Hesser H, Hummerdal D, Bergman-Nordgren L, Carlbring P. (2013). A 3.5-year follow-up of Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for major depression. J Mental Health, 22, 155–64. Callard F, Rose D. (2012). The mental health strategy for Europe: Why service user leadership in research is indispensable. J Mental Health, 21, 219–26. Chen C-C, Yamada T, Smith J. (2014). An evaluation of healthcare information on the internet: The case of colorectal cancer prevention. Int J Environ Res Publ Health, 11, 1058–75. Cobus L. (2008). Integrating information literacy into the education of public health professionals: roles for librarians and the library. J Med Libr Assoc, 96, 28–33. Ennis L, Rose D, Denis M, Pandit N, Wykes T. (2012). Can’t surf, won’t surf: The digital divide in mental health. J Mental Health, 21, 395–403. Henwood F, Wyatt S, Hart A, Smith J. (2003). ‘Ignorance is bliss sometimes’: constraints on the emergence of the ‘informed patient’ in the changing landscapes of health information. Sociol Health Illn, 25, 589–607. Kaplan Jacobs S, Rosenfeld P, Haber J. (2003). Information literacy as the foundation for evidence-based practice in graduate nursing education: a curriculum-integrated approach. J Prof Nurs, 19, 320–8. Maciver D, Prior S, Forsyth K, Walsh M, Meiklejohn A, Irvine L, et al. (2013). Vocational rehabilitation: Facilitating evidence based practice through participatory action research. J Mental Health, 22, 183–90. Mason OJ, Holt R. (2012). Mental health and physical activity interventions: A review of the qualitative literature. J Mental Health, 21, 274–84. Price R, Becker K, Clark L, Collins S. (2011). Embedding information literacy in a first-year business undergraduate course. Stud High Educ, 36, 705–18. Saranto K, Hovenga EJ. (2004). Information literacy—what it is about?: Literature review of the concept and the context. Int J Med Inform, 73, 503–13. Schmidt U, Wykes T. (2012). E-mental health – a land of unlimited possibilities. J Mental Health, 21, 327–31. Scott A, Doughty C. (2012). ‘‘Confronted with paperwork’’: Information and documentation in peer support. J Mental Health, 21, 154–64. Slade M, Williams J, Bird V, leamy M, Le Boutillier C. (2012). Recovery grows up. J Mental Health, 21, 99–103. Wykes T, Lipczynska S, Guha M. (2013). The h-index, the citation rating, impact factors and the aspiring researcher. J Mental Health, 22, 467–73.
