Librarians and health literacy: A scoping review Klem ML 1, Devine PJ 2, El-Khayat YM 3, Gutzman KE 4, Knehans A 5, Mills TN 6, Oren GA 7, Perryman CL 8, Saleh AA 3, Unno ZP 9, Vardell E 10 1 Health Sciences Library System,University of Pittsburgh, 2 National Network of Libraries of Medicine, University of Washington, 3 Arizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, 4 Galter Health Sciences Library, Northwestern University, 5 George T. Harrell Health Sciences Library, Penn State Hershey, 6 Ralph M. Paiewonsky Library, University of the Virgin Islands, 7 Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, 8 School of Library & Information Studies, Texas Woman’s University, 9 Pollak Library, California State University Fullerton, 10 School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina Introduction Methods Results References PubMedLISA (Proquest) CINAHL (Ebscohost)LISTA (Ebscohost) Cochrane Library (Wiley)Academic Search Premier Embase.comScopus Databases searched : Searches covered date of database inception to Feb-May 2014 Search building process: A librarian (MLK) with experience in building complex searches created the PubMed search PubMed search was peer-reviewed by MLA Research Agenda Committee 3 sets of librarians worked together to translate the PubMed search for use in other databases This process allowed experienced searchers to share their expertise with teammates Hand-searching : conference abstracts for MLA, Canadian Health Libraries Association, and International Federation of Library Associations issues of JMLA, Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, Health Information & Libraries Journals, and Journal of Health Communication Start dates based on availability of electronic versions of resources The MLA Research Section has identified research on health literacy as a priority. This poster describes an ongoing scoping review that will systematically characterize the nature of existing literature on librarians and their involvement with health literacy. Phase 1: title and abstract screening Discussion Phase 2: full-text screening Written in English? Addresses healthy literacy or consumer health? NO - exclude YES or not sure NO - exclude YES or not sure Is it an article or a letter to the editor? YES NO - exclude Is it research (Peritz, 1980): states a purpose or question uses a systematic method discussion of outcome, results or new facts YES NO Describes/analyzes an experience with a process, group, innovation, technology, project, program or organization? Keep for data extraction YES NO Code as “experiential narrative” Provides an overview or summary of existing literature? YES Code as “review article” NO - exclude In both phases: 2 reviewers independently screen the record or article Disagreements resolved by discussion or by a 3 rd reviewer Data management The study protocol, meeting minutes, and other procedural documents are stored in DropBox Full-text articles screened in Phase 2 are stored in a university- sponsored Box account EndNote and Excel spreadsheets are used to manage database citations and to collect Phase 1 data Google Drive forms are used to collect data during Phase 2 and hand-searches Data collected during Phase 1, Phase 2 and hand-searching is either stored locally (Phase 1) or in Google Drive Data back-up files are created on a regular basis and stored locally and off-site 14,116 records from database searches 10,260 records after duplicates removed Phase 1: 6481 records excluded Phase 2: 3779 full-text articles will be located and screened This scoping review will identify literature published by librarians that addresses health literacy Our findings will identify trends and gaps in this literature, and serve as a map for future research Peritz, BC (1980). The methods of library science research: Some results from a bibliometric survey. Library Research, 2,