1.1 Introduction

In the 1970s, clinical librarian Gertrude Lamb recognized a gap between medical literature and practice. The expansion of medical knowledge, tied with technological advancement, meant that it was becoming more difficult for physicians to synthesize applicable knowledge into practice. As a result, she proposed training clinical librarians to work directly in this hospital setting. She described this new clinical team member as

Essentially, clinical librarianship programs sought to move medical reference librarians into the clinical setting in order to provide more rapid and relevant service for physicians. The clinical librarian as conceptualized by Lamb also serves the important role of “[closing] the gap between what medicine as a discipline knows about good patient care and the knowledge that is actually applied to the care of patients” (Arcari & Lamb, 1977). Breaking down barriers to knowledge-based information and evidence-based practice is now a central component of the work done by information professionals in research and clinical settings.

As information needs have evolved over the decades following Lamb’s work, so too has the role of the clinical research librarian. The changing information needs of researchers and medical professionals have led to the creation of a new role: the informationist.

Although the exact definition of the informationist has been debated in the past few decades, Lisa Federer has offered the basic definition of an informationist as “an embedded information professional who provides specialized services to researchers at their point of need, such as in a laboratory or clinical research setting” (Federer, 2014). More and more librarians are working as partners and collaborators in research. Rather than providing auxiliary support services for researchers, informationists seek to foster partnerships through outreach and domain-focused service.

1.2 Traditional roles (reference librarian) vs. new roles (informationist)

While reference librarians have been providing support to researchers for years, the informationisťs expanded role can be seen as a response to the limitations and missing links in researchers’ traditional approaches. Critical work done by the informationist bridges the gap between knowledge hidden in medical literature and information needed in clinical practice. Rapid access to and nuanced curation of information is crucial for the medical professional who may not have the time or training to synthesize information into practice themselves.

As many reference librarian positions are transitioning to informationist roles, several distinctions between the two come into view. While both the general reference librarian and the informationist typically hold a master’s degree in library and information science, some informationists also have academic or professional experience in science or medicine prior to their appointment. These professionals tend to work in field specialties that correspond to their prior experiences. However, only about half of National Institutes of Health (NIH) informationists as of 2008 had prior formal training in science or medicine, and among those who did were not likely familiar with research and clinical aspects of medicine (Robison, 2008).

Regardless of background education, research informationists are generally expected to engage in continued training in information science and biomedical science throughout their tenure. Subject-specific expertise is more common in the informationist role, whereas reference librarians working in medical libraries are expected to have a more generalized knowledge over a range of medical areas (Cooper, 2011). The main aim of their continued education is to retain an up-to-date understanding of their respective medical field while honing their research and teaching skills for library outreach. Beyond a basic familiarity with the researchers’ field, the informationist should also be attuned to the specific research culture of the fields to which they provide their services (Federer, 2013). Knowledge of attitudes surrounding data sharing, specialized jargon, and the field’s practice in general can be gleaned through close collaboration and advanced training. Therefore, informationist training involves reaching a deeper understanding of the content, context, and culture of their specific research domain.

Perhaps the central role of the informationist is to foster interdisciplinary partnerships within academic and clinical environments. Informationists have roles and responsibilities distinct from those of reference librarians, although they generally rely upon the same institutional resources within the library. As opposed to traditional reference librarians who tend to focus on peer-reviewed literature, informationists work with research teams from project inception. Working as embedded information professionals, informationists operate directly within clinical or research workflows to enhance knowledge management, evidence-based practice, and patient care (DeRosa, Gibson, & Morris, 2016).

While both the reference librarian and the informationist are point-of-contact for information retrieval on specific questions, the informationist often performs critical appraisal of retrieved information and literature synthesis. Research informationists can give advice on data management and curation, provide expert searching (i.e., metaanalysis and systematic reviews), and perform bibliometric analysis and network analysis for potential research collaborators. Moreover, informationists’ responsibilities also generally involve anticipating research needs of their users and staying up to date on research in their field. Inundated with information, the typical physician needs specialized support services that work with them at point of care.

Libraries are beginning to address the changing needs of users and nature of knowledge dissemination, and the evolving role of the information professional reflects this trend. Technology has changed not only how scientific researchers access information, but also how science itself is conducted. As data plays a bigger role in healthcare practice, management, and policy, librarians also need to act as data management specialists that can link medical literature and data directly to clinical care. Through their collaboration with medical professionals, informationists improve research output by streamlining data gathering, storage, and curation (Federer, 2013). Data-driven science is best conducted by interdisciplinary teams that can work together, and embedding an information professional in the research and clinical workflow establishes clear communication pathways, increases the visibility of library resources, and fosters collaborative partnerships in research.

1.3 Role in the scientific setting

Allee describes steps that the Taubman Health Sciences Library has taken in order to transform the library into an innovative and collaborative space for its users. The library’s mission was redefined to highlight partnerships and collaboration with their affiliated research facilities, vowing “to be a valued partner, fully integrated into the work of the university, providing leadership in knowledge management for education, research, patient care, and community outreach” (Allee et al., 2014).

Resituating the library as a “knowledge management center” to affirm their relevancy and communicate their visibility in the scientific setting, further structural steps were taken to create an interdisciplinary space. Certain traditional roles were replaced with new ones that offered services more closely aligned with clinical partnerships in mind. Over time, reference librarians took on liaison duties that allowed them to allocate a majority of their time to consultation and in-depth reference questions.

The liaison program effectively extended library services by directly embedding librarians within clinical and academic contexts in order to establish communication pathways and increase the visibility of the library. These librarians were further encouraged to develop research and informatics links with the health sciences departments. Facilitating research interactions through on-site presence, librarians were able to foster a more comprehensive research environment, supporting educational programs while also connecting independent researchers to each other. According to Allee, the restructured Taubman Library “is essential for functioning as a dedicated, discipline-neutral resource, supporting the research cores through expert searching, instruction on specialized databases, and consultation on a variety of information needs, including collaborative licensing of resources” (Allee et al., 2014).

The NIH in Bethesda, Maryland has also outlined the implementation of their informationist program which has grown to 15 informationists working with over 40 clinical and scientific research teams (NIH, 2017). Working to enhance the library’s service capabilities, the NIH informationist program has expanded the role of the library and its information specialists. From the program’s implementation in 2001, job responsibilities have evolved from traditional reference roles to more diverse information management services. Informationists at NIH have helped measure the impact of funding and research, facilitated library training programs for fellows and trainees, provided expert searching for clinical practice, and custom data management services (NIH, 2017). Outcomes have been overwhelmingly positive, as NIH scientists have reported that informationists saved them time and contributed to research teams via expert searching and data management.

The program itself has evolved from its inception. According to a 2008 report by Whitmore, NIH researchers initially benefitted from informationists accompanying them on rounds, executing comprehensive literature searches, and providing consultation on online databases. Today, NIH’s informationists are expected to delve even deeper into scientific research teams by conducting critical appraisal and synthesis of literature, preparing manuscripts, coauthoring articles, and assisting with data analysis software. Informationists working alongside clinical teams are further expected to go on rounds with patient-care teams in order to respond to current or anticipated information needs (Whitmore, Grefsheim, & Rankin, 2008).

Preliminary evaluations of the NIH program found that research groups working with an informationist “tended to use a wider range of information services and resources more frequently; were more satisfied with their ability to find answers to questions that arose during the course of their work; and were more likely to pursue answers to questions that arise in their work than they were previously” (Whitmore et al., 2008). The success of this program has led to the integration of informationists into clinical teams as well as a growing demand for a wider array of services. Continued training for informationists to maintain and expand their expertise in both information science and their associated field is essential for continued success of this program. Similar findings show that as the relationship between the clinical team and informationist developed, demand for activities outside the realm of traditional librarianship expanded (Grefsheim et al., 2010).

Informationists have also been found to increase the confidence and frequency of researchers’ independent information seeking behavior. Although time has frequently been cited as an obstacle for researchers, survey respondents at NIH reported that they were significantly more likely to find answers to their clinical questions and were more satisfied with their ability to find relevant information once informationists had been integrated into research teams for several years (Grefsheim et al., 2010).

Indeed, evidence of the impact of informationist on scientific research becomes more apparent the longer they have been integrated into research teams. Although in 2004 only 40% of NIH respondents reported working directly with an informationist, by 2006 this number has risen to 69%. Significant increases in the perceived benefits of the program were also found in the years following the implementation of the informationist program. By 2006, overwhelming benefits reported by NIH respondents included “added thoroughness,” “providing expertise in finding information,” and “help finding additional information” (Grefsheim et al., 2010).

1.4 Conclusion

As librarians’ roles evolve in the medical and scientific setting, programs such as these are essential to collaborative research projects and comprehensive clinical care. The role of the informationist varies from institution to institution, so libraries must evaluate the needs of their distinct users. In this way, effective policies that bring research and clinical practice together can be uniquely implemented. In general, however, the overall goal of the informationist should be to act as an intermediary between scientific literature and practice, improving the flow of information by means of data management and curation, expert searching, and education.

This book as a whole will serve as a guide for new informationists. The following chapters will define and outline the informationisťs role in scientific research settings while providing illustrative case studies of informationists in action.

This chapter has given a general overview of the differences between the traditional librarian and the evolving research informationist. In defining this new role, it has attempted to show how information specialists directly benefit clinical care and scientific research teams. Although librarians have been providing support to researchers for years, the role of the informationist demonstrates librarians’ ability to adapt to the dynamic needs of their users.

Over the past decade, the informationist has become an essential part of clinical and research practice in the scientific and medical fields. Chapter 2 discusses the specific training, education, and outreach expected of the informationist. It outlines how to become familiar with your user community to deliver tailored instruction—both formal and on the fly. Examples will be used ranging from developing domain-focused worksheets to work through an initial conversational information needs and/or to support conducting the reference interview, to innovative and proven methods of embedding oneself into a user group’s workflow (attend grand rounds, roving reference, research meetings, journal clubs, annotated meeting minutes, etc.). It will discuss the ways in which informationists can promote their role and skills to end users, and will also cover methods of delivering targeted/customized training and consultation by way of a case study on an embedded educational program for family medicine residents.

Chapters 3–7 focus on the informationisťs role in providing meaningful information to researchers, incorporating several relevant case studies.

Beyond expert searching, the informationist can take it one step further by assisting with focusing the research question and streamlining the researcher’s topic. They can also support the manuscript submission process and clarify publishing guidelines. Chapter 3 covers aspects of being a team member and collaborator, illustrating the informationisťs role in a case study on knowledge management in research projects, scholarly communication, and the publishing process.

Chapter 4 discusses bibliometric analysis in regard to delivery of value-added results in a medical library setting (NIH) and includes a case study on the topic.

Chapter 5 covers the data management lifecycle with examples of supporting users in practice, as well as data visualization and applied data science techniques in regard to delivery of value-added results and includes a data science-based case study.

Providing meaningful information also involves an awareness of users and the current state of the research. Chapter 6 describes how to get to know your clients and end users in order to provide them with relevant information in a timely manner. Here, a case study is illustrated, which covers the importance of current awareness and innovative solutions for helping users keep up with the field’s research.

Chapter 7 discusses the importance of evidence-based practice in health care and how the informationist is uniquely qualified to be a champion in this field. This chapter includes a step-by-step process on developing a clinical question, ontology of terms, and comprehensive search strategy, as well as embedded information services in clinical settings in three individual case studies.

The final chapter discusses future perspectives for research informationists. It will attempt to anticipate where we are headed and how the profession is adapting to modern needs and demands of library users.