Academic literature on the topic 'University of New Mexico. Medical Center Library'

Background - Google Wave was touted as the next big communication tool—combining e-mail, social networking, and chat within a single “wave”—with the potential to create a new world for collaboration. Information professionals who are knowledgeable of this tool and its capabilities could become uniquely situated to use it, evaluate it, and teach it. This seemed especially true for those working within Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)-minded institutions, given the promise of interdisciplinary collaboration between investigators and the potential for creating new authorship models. This case study on Google Wave users who are affiliated with CTSA-minded institutions, was designed for and presented at the Evidence-Based Scholarly Communication Conference held by the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Library and Information Center. It provides an early evidence based evaluation of Google Wave’s potential.
 
 Methods - Two “waves” were created. The first consisted of five survey questions designed to collect demographic data on the respondents’ roles, a general impression of Wave, the specific tools within Wave that might be useful, and potential collaborators with whom the respondents might use Wave. The second wave was a private, guided discussion on Wave’s collaboration potential. Individuals from CTSA-minded institutions were invited to participate with messages on Twitter, forums, blogs, and electronic mail lists, although there were difficulties reaching out to these institutions as a group. 
 
 Results - By the conclusion of the study, only a small number of people (n=11, with a viable n=9) had responded to the survey. Given this small result set, it made sense to group the responses by the respondents’ roles (CTSA staff and researchers, support staff, medical librarian, or general public) and to treat them as individual cases. Most of the respondents were librarians and support staff who felt that Wave might have potential for collaboration; there were no CTSA researcher respondents. For the second part of the study, the discussion wave, only one participant explicitly expressed interest in joining. All were invited to join, but there was no participation in the discussion wave at the conclusion of the study.
 
 Conclusions -The results of this study implied that Google Wave was not on the forefront of CTSA-minded institutions’ communication strategies. However, it was being used, and it did demonstrate new collaboration and authorship capabilities. Being generally aware of these capabilities may be useful to information professionals who seek to be current and informed regarding developing technology and to those interested in scholarly communication practices. In addition, the difficulties encountered during this case study in attempting to reach out to CTSA-minded institutions raised the question of how members currently communicate with each other as institutions and as individuals. There was a lesson learned in the usefulness of doing case-study research to evaluate new technologies; the cost in terms of time was relatively low, and knowledge about the technology itself was gained while establishing a base level of evidence to potentially build on in the future.
 
 Methods: Two “waves” were created. The first consisted of five survey questions designed to collect demographic data on the respondents’ roles, a general impression of Wave, the specific tools within Wave that might be useful, and who the respondents might use Wave to collaborate with. The second wave was a private, guided discussion on Wave’s collaboration potential. Individuals from CTSA-minded institutions were invited to participate from related public waves and by sending out calls for through Twitter, forums, blogs, and e-mail, although there were difficulties reaching out to these institutions as a group. 
 
 Results: By the conclusion of the study, only a small number of respondents (n=11, with a viable n=9) had taken the survey. Given this small result set, it made sense to group the responses by the respondents’ roles (CTSA staff/researchers, support staff, medical librarian, or general public) and treat them as individual cases. Most of the respondents were librarians and support staff who felt that Wave might have potential for collaboration; there were no CTSA researcher respondents. For the second part of the study, the discussion wave, only one participant explicitly expressed interest in joining. All were invited to join for the sake of numbers, but there was no participation in the discussion wave by the conclusion of the study.
 
 Conclusions: The results of this study implied that Google Wave was not on the forefront of CTSA-minded institutions’ communication strategies. However, it was being used and it did demonstrate new collaboration and authorship capabilities; being generally aware of these capabilities may be useful to information professionals who seek to stay on top of developing technology and to those interested in scholarly communication practices. In addition, the difficulties encountered during this case study in attempting to reach out to CTSA-minded institutions raised the question of how members currently communicate with each other as institutions and as individuals. There was a lesson learned in the usefulness of doing case-study research to evaluate new technologies; cost in terms of time is relatively low and knowledge can be gained of the technology itself while establishing a base level of evidence to potentially build on in the future.

The University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) Library is a graduate-only health science university with four professional schools (medicine, pharmacy, nursing, and dentistry), a graduate division, and an academic medical center. For several years UCSF has been the number one public recipient of NIH funding, reflecting the school’s dedication to biomedical research. Around 2015, the UCSF Library began investigating new ways to serve the university’s research population. Seeing a need for more computational and entrepreneurship training the library piloted two new programs: the Data Science Initiative (DSI) and the Makers Lab.

A need was identified by the Department of Population Health (DPH) for an academic medical center to facilitate research using large, externally funded datasets. Barriers identified included difficulty in accessing and working with the datasets, and a lack of knowledge about institutional licenses. A need to facilitate sharing and reuse of datasets generated by researchers at the institution (internal datasets) was also recognized. The library partnered with a researcher in the DPH to create a catalog of external datasets, which provided detailed metadata and access instructions. The catalog listed researchers at the medical center and the main campus with expertise in using these external datasets in order to facilitate research and cross-campus collaboration. Data description standards were reviewed to create a set of metadata to facilitate access to both externally generated datasets, as well as the internally generated datasets that would constitute the next phase of development of the catalog. Interviews with a range of investigators at the institution identified DPH researchers as most interested in data sharing, therefore targeted outreach to this group was undertaken. Initial outreach resulted in additional external datasets being described, new local experts volunteering, proposals for additional functionality, and interest from researchers in inclusion of their internal datasets in the catalog. Despite limited outreach, the catalog has had ~250 unique page views in the three months since it went live. The establishment of the catalog also led to partnerships with the medical center’s data management core and the main university library. The Data Catalog in its present state serves a direct user need from the Department of Population Health to describe large, externally funded datasets. The library will use this initial strong community of users to expand the catalog and include internally generated research datasets. Future expansion plans will include working with DataCore and the main university library.

Pemetrexed is a multitargeted antifolate indicated for locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cutaneous reactions are associated with pemetrexed use. Pemetrexed prescribing information recommends oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice daily for three days starting the day before pemetrexed infusion to prevent cutaneous reactions. Patients receive intravenous dexamethasone before pemetrexed infusion at the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, but the oral dexamethasone recommendation is not always followed. The objective of this study was to determine if there is a difference between patients who received three days of oral dexamethasone starting the day before pemetrexed infusion and patients who did not by determining incidence of cutaneous reactions, delay in therapy, and therapy change due to adverse reactions. Eighty-five patients received at least one dose of pemetrexed between August 1, 2012 and August 31, 2017. Twenty-nine patients did not receive three days of oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice daily and 56 patients did (34.1% vs. 65.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of cutaneous reactions between the intervention group and the control group (13.8% vs. 25.0%; p = 0.384), delay in pemetrexed therapy between groups (44.8% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.2), or therapy change due to adverse events (34.5% vs. 23.2%; p = 0.654). Results suggest three days of oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice daily did not significantly affect incidence rates of cutaneous reactions, delay in therapy, or therapy change in patients who received intravenous dexamethasone before pemetrexed infusion at University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Over the years, the library activity has been focused on libraries programs. But today, according to the scientific development of information technology in various fields including medicine Librarians and Medical Informatics sciences skills in new areas serving the medical community and patients has changed. In addition to changing activities, medical librarians working in the libraries of traditional state-centered research activities, new jobs have been created for graduates. In this study, a qualitative interview from librarians graduated between the years 80 to 93 and working in different parts of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences was created. According to the qualitative interviews, medical librarians have a strong presence in these activities:As well as doctors and care team members in different centers, such as research centers, training and knowledge management university, helping in the search for papers for scientific and academic staffs and provide access to the best evidence for them, Evidence-Based Medicine center(EBM), Research Development & Coordination Center (RDCC), Activity in publication center and convert documents into a suitable format and accepted as HTML or PDF or XML for inclusion in the Institutional Repository of the University Process data recording, content management, workshops for faculty and students, University survey activities in science centers, medical education and e-learning as well as other ancillary activities. Therefore, with respect to this research, due to the active participation of the medical librarian in research and teaching. In addition to the presentation of their competences librarians and medical informatics university, to show their presence and active. It is also supporting the Ministry of Health and medical universities, medical librarians and creating new posts of employment, their potential for research use,