Profile

Scrapbook photo 1
Scrapbook photo 2
Scrapbook photo 3
Scrapbook photo 4
Scrapbook photo 5
Patricia F Anderson
Lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan
3,530 followers|221,263 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Patricia F Anderson
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Hi, all! Today not enough people showed up to accomplish anything, so this is a quick update on next steps. Next week is a major American holiday (Independence Day) so we will not have a meeting. The week after, my library is moving. I will TRY to make a meeting, but may not have internet. I will try to confirm the day before (Thursday). In the meantime, please review (edit) and comment on columns 2 and 3 of this spreadsheet!  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17kYR2VxEliSxIO0XGmruflZKxJMyocC1ptM9B_3g9MI/edit?usp=drive_web
1
Add a comment...
 
Pulling from the minutes for the discussion about the studying apps. This part:
* Partner with Cool Toys group
Best apps for studying
does a list already exist?
how to keep it updated?
where to host?
who is doing the research?
what is the scope?
poll students?
schedule a joint meeting to discuss?

This is AWESOME thinking, you all! What we were thinking of, just to start, was getting together and simply brainstorming or finding out what folk in this group find most useful, interesting, helpful, etc. For schedule a joint meeting, we were thinking of either the already scheduled June or July meetings, if that sounds alright? 
1
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson

Shared publicly  - 
 
I need this for my yard. Great find! #citsci   #gardening  
 
Midwest + citizen science + invasive species
The Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN) is a regional effort to develop and provide an early detection and rapid response (EDRR) resource for invasive species. The goal of this regional resource is to assist both experts and citizen scientists in the detection and identification ...
1 comment on original post
1
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Brief update! First, CHANGE of date for next week's meeting. Most of the regular crowd could not meet on Friday, so we will meet on Tuesday again next week, at 10AM Eastern Time. 

Now, what happened today. Mostly, we gave Tierney an update on recent developments, and reviewed draft search strategies for two subgroups. We also spent a chunk of time talking through the methodology conversation started here: 

https://plus.google.com/u/1/+PatriciaFAnderson/posts/48R7DdwiQeK

Part of what we talked about is how to streamline the "tech adoption assessment" process. We talked about taking that list and trying something where you start the review with the tests that are most successful in differentiating appropriate technologies, and then not necessarily continuing unless the evidence is unclear. So, for example:

If a specific tech shows up with lots of activity in grants, clinical trials, and has peer reviewed journals on the topic indexed in MEDLINE, then that is probably one we should know about. So we might start looking in those three places first. Pubmed analysis might come as a subsequent step, followed by some of the other ideas, and then saving Google to assess tech that we are told is important but which isn't having a strong showing in the other areas. I hope that's a fair way to describe the idea. Obviously, we need to test it out and firm this up. 

So, that's the short view for today's meeting! 

I was very tired and muddled, so my notes are sparse. 
1
Pamela Herring's profile photoAndrea Kepsel's profile photoPatricia Anderson's profile photo
3 comments
 
My apologies. I screwed up. Hopefully we can still iron out the document in time! 
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Right now, we've talked about presenting the team's project-related activities as having three phases. Right now, the phases look roughly like this.

Phase One (Year One): 
1. Define question (done, Phase 1)
2. Generate topic list for evaluation (done, Phase 1) 
3. Cluster topics, define subgroups (done, Phase 1)

Phase Two (Year Two): 
4. Select databases (done, Phase 2)
5. Define inclusion / exclusion criteria, assessment criteria for target topics. Preliminary tests of criteria. (rough draft done, Phase 2)

Phase Three (Year Three): 
6. Perform searches, harvest results [PENDING, Phase 3]
7. Assess results, write final report [PENDING, Phase 3] 

Methodology notes: 
https://drive.google.com/a/umich.edu/?tab=mo#folders/0B-2XA0_7hc10QkJYS2tlN1NadFU

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Rough Draft & Notes
https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu/document/d/1xETi9WNztVzLBxsyIVak5EHdCUMgP7CcC2B4OxciMDU/edit
1
Pamela Herring's profile photoSkye Bickett's profile photo
2 comments
 
This looks great! Sorry I've been MIA. I've been teaching (yay), so haven't been able to make meetings. Should be done next week. Trying to keep up with the notes from the meetings.
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Thank you all for your patience. I'm back from the funeral.

I significantly updated our group bibliography as a resource for CVs, resumes, and such. There are a few that need info from other folk (+Scott McLachlan  especially!).

I think we are ready to finalize the basic search strategy, and then post it here for public commentary. It would be helpful to talk through it again, and take notes on the decisions we are making and why, so that we can articulate them and justify them to our peers (who will surely question many of the same things we questioned!). 

We need to identify inclusion / exclusion criteria, and those will be different for each of the groups. Once we identify the in/ex criteria for each group, we can then identify the overlap (common elements) and whether or not to use all or none or some of those in the basic search. I'll make a separate post on that for brainstorming. 
1
Joanne Doucette's profile photoPatricia F Anderson's profile photo
2 comments
 
Thanks, Joanne. :) 
Add a comment...
In her circles
3,408 people
Have her in circles
3,530 people
Gisèle Frenette's profile photo
Rick Hillin's profile photo
Ruby Parchment's profile photo
Nico Baird's profile photo
John Lewis's profile photo
Esminee Rase's profile photo
Jason Fleming's profile photo
Hangout Rangers™'s profile photo
Sujit Agarwal's profile photo

Patricia F Anderson
owner

Resources  - 
 
Just saw this group of emerging tech #emtech  pieces in a group on JAMA's page. 

Featured Topics
January 13—June 16, 2015
Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
The Anatomy of Medical Research
Collins on NIH's Role in Medical Science
Tjian on HHMI's Role in Biomedical Research
Langer and Weissleder on Nanotechnology  audio icon
Editorial: Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
Topol and colleagues on Digital Medical Tools and Sensors  audio icon
Rogers on Electronics for the Human Body  audio icon
Doudna on Genomic Engineering and the Future of Medicine  audio icon
Lieberman and Sharp on RNA Interference for Therapy  audio icon
Atala and Murphy on Regenerative Medicine  audio icon
Wilson and Wu on Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells  audio icon
Deisseroth and colleagues on Circuit Dynamics of Psychiatric Disease  audio icon
Xie on Pinpointing Precision Medicine for Single Molecules in Genomics
Farrar on Translating New Knowledge to Better Health
1
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson
owner

Resources  - 
 
Another new emerging tech report. Includes targeted learning, new definitions of expertise, context-aware, embedded tech, productivity hacking, and personal helpers.  http://www.psfk.com/2015/06/connected-life-modern-consumer-psfk-report.html
A look back on PSFK’s preview of the 12 trends shaping the connected life of the modern consumer.
1
Patricia F Anderson's profile photo
2 comments
Add a comment...
 
FYI. PSA 3 - #StrongerThanStigma, 2015 Check out the series. Here is Wayne Brady (comedian) talking about depression https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFnwJg_4uwM
1
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson
owner

Discussion  - 
 
I've been brainstorming our adoptions levels. We had years and type of librarian, but I think we might want to possibly ID some relevant professional behaviors as part of our mapping: collection support, reference support, professional practice, etc. 
1
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Here is the original version of what we had rough drafted as our "inclusion/exclusion criteria" a.k.a. adoption curve mapping components. Please note, we have since removed some of the less distinguishing criteria in order to simplify our process. 

DATABASES
 - Pubmed.gov
 - Pubmed.gov
 - Clinicaltrials.gov
 - Google.com
 - Google Scholar
 - Grants.gov
 - Guidelines.gov
 - Wikipedia.org

ARTICLES  
-Google #
-GScholar #  
-[TIAB] #

PUBMED 
 - Newest article date
 - Oldest article date
 - Length of span (Years)
 - Shape of span (opt)
 - "Systematic Review articles (Clinical Queries)"

JOURNALS / NLM CATALOG 
 - Exist
 - #
 - Indexed Years (of oldest)
 - "Impact factor"
 - Altmetric.com

RESEARCH TYPES 
 - "Bench or Tech"
 - Animal Human

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 
RESEARCH CENTERS
GOVERNMENT GRANTS/FUNDING 
CLINICAL TRIALS 
1
Patricia F Anderson's profile photo
 
Hoping folk will comment here with questions, clarifications, thoughts, etc. :) 
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Dagnabbit. I spent hours this morning working on a post about inclusion/exclusion criteria, and it disappeared while I was researching some of the links I wanted to include, and updating one of the Google docs. Color me annoyed. Let's hope I can remember at least some of what I wrote. 

Here is our GDoc with notes on the inclusion/exclusion criteria: https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu/document/d/1xETi9WNztVzLBxsyIVak5EHdCUMgP7CcC2B4OxciMDU/edit

COMMENTS: 
1) "Inclusion/exclusion criteria" (in/ex crit) does not mean in our team what it does in a typical systematic review. Why? Because our methodology has us selecting new technologies, not articles. Therefore, we need to select very different types of criteria.

2) At this point in time, we are evolving some of the explicit criteria, but we may not be able to identify all of them until we have worked through this with one or two groups and observed how and where  the utilitarian dividing lines tend to appear. 

3) In/ex crib usually drive the search limits and inform the search strategy formation. I suspect this may be less true for our question than for others because of the nature of the question and because our methodology, while both systematic and a review, is not a true systematic review (SR). 

4) For standard search limits, most SRs commonly use limits on language, age groups, and human/animal. Many also limit to anatomical area, specific methodologies commonly used in the research base for that question, and types of analysis similarly common in that research base. These are less likely to be relevant for our teams, and (I suspect) may be relevant to one subgroup and not another. 

Here is an illustration. Since our goal is to identify technologies relevant to medical librarians, many of them may not actually be relevant in clinical use. That means that a limit of "human" would exclude many of the technologies that librarians actually use. However, the subgroup on e-tech in the human body should absolutely use a limit of human. If we apply a limit of human to the base search, we drastically limit the options for the other subgroups.

On the flip side, I would think that by the time any emerging technology has become relevant to medical librarians, it will have been published in English. So perhaps a language limit would make sense at the level of the base search. Similarly, while we haven't yet tested the major journal filters, it would be expected that emerging tech ripe for adoption would be appearing in major journals also, so perhaps we want to test those filters as a possible way to streamline our work. Or maybe not? It might limit things too much.  

Does that make sense to anyone else? Can you think of other similar limits we should or shouldn't use with the base search? Or ones we should be testing prior to implementing? 

I've been thinking that each subgroup should identify the limits they feel are appropriate for their area. Once we identify the in/ex criteria for each group, we can then identify the overlap (common elements) and whether or not to use all or none or some of those in the basic search. Obviously, limits used in the base search would not need to be repeated in the subgroup searches. 

Please react, respond, brainstorm, add questions & thoughts, and poke around in the Google Doc. MANY THANKS! 
Drive
METHODOLOGY: Inclusion/Exclusion/Selection CriteriaSearch strategies & process (SHORT) Define question (done) Generate topic list for evaluation (done) Select databases (done) Pubmed Research quantity Research timespan Clinical relevance (Human or not) NLM Locator (Journal Titles) Clinical Trials Guidelines Grants Define inclusion / exclusion cr
1
Add a comment...
People
In her circles
3,408 people
Have her in circles
3,530 people
Gisèle Frenette's profile photo
Rick Hillin's profile photo
Ruby Parchment's profile photo
Nico Baird's profile photo
John Lewis's profile photo
Esminee Rase's profile photo
Jason Fleming's profile photo
Hangout Rangers™'s profile photo
Sujit Agarwal's profile photo
Work
Occupation
Emerging Technologies Librarian
Basic Information
Gender
Female
Other names
Perplexity Peccable (SL)
Story
Tagline
ETechLib (E=Emerging or E=Eccentric)
Introduction
I am a single mom of a special needs kid, emerging technologies librarian, specialist in evidence based dentistry, author of a three volume reference book on search engines and search strategies for health, active in health in virtual worlds, with a strong interest in ehealth, informatics, and social/semantic tech.
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Previously
Iowa - Chicago