Changing minds and methods: providing health sciences faculty with alternatives to systematic reviews assignments

Abstract

Background: Health sciences librarians frequently engage in discussions about the appropriate assignment of evidence synthesis reviews (ES) for graduate students as course, thesis, or capstone projects. Such reviews are often assigned to build the research skills needed in a clinical environment. In the assignment of these reviews, it has become apparent that health sciences faculty are often not familiar with required standardized methodologies. Incorrect methodologies can contribute to research waste and produce evidence that cannot be applied for its intended purpose. Case Presentation: Health sciences librarians at an R1 institution ventured to address the ES review knowledge gap through a continuing education webinar for health sciences faculty and graduate students. The webinar provided guidance on systematic review (SR) methodology, optional alternative research assignments, and discussions encouraging the use of these assignments. The alternative assignments were developed based on those presented by Lipke & Price (2025), each with specific learning objectives and grading rubrics. Pre-and post-webinar surveys were conducted to gauge any changes in participants’ knowledge, skills, or abilities related to the presented information. Conclusions: Study participants included six faculty and a graduate student. Survey results showed that participants had an improved understanding of, and placed increased importance on, ES method guidelines, with an equal understanding of the need for alternative assignments. The authors of this study will further evaluate the impact of this webinar and assess its effectiveness in changing health sciences research assignments.