National Library Week

12 04 2011

It is National Library Week! Did you know that?

To be honest I didn’t.

Today, Tuesday, is even National Library Workers Day — a time to thank librarians and the rest of the library staff (LA-Times).

I didn’t know that either, until I received a tweet from @doc_emer which was retweeted by doctor_V (see Fig).

Now I know.

Thank you Dr. Emer and Bryan Vartabedian (Doctor V). You made my day!

*********************************

Added:

 

@amcunningham (AnneMarie Cunningham) tweeted:
Since it’s national library week, thought I’d say thanks to all the great librarians on this list:) http://bit.ly/gkzKZm

 

 





Webicina Presents: PeRSSonalized Medical Librarianship: Selected Blogs, News, Journals and More

13 08 2010

One and a half-year ago I wrote about PeRSSonalized Medicine, developed by Bertalan Mesko or Berci. It is part of Webicina, which “aims to help physicians and other healthcare people to enter the web 2.0 era with quality medical information and selected online medical resources”.

The RSS in PeRSSonalized Medicine stands for Real Simple Syndication, which is a format for delivering regularly changing web content, i.e. from Journals. However, if you use PeRSSonalized Medicine, you don’t need to have a clue what RSS is all about. It is easy to use and you can personalize it (hence the name)

In the previous post I discussed several alternatives of PeRSSonalized Medicine. You can never tell how a new idea, or project or a new business will develop. We have seen Clinical Reader come and disappear. PeRSSonalized Medicine however really boomed. Why? Because it is free, because it has an altruistic goal (facilitate instead of earning money), because users are involved in the development and because it keeps evolving on basis of feedback.

PeRSSonalized Medicine develops fast. There is not a week that I don’t see a new section: Nephrology, Genetics, Diabetes whatever.

And this week tada tada tada … it is the turn of the Medical Librarianship, with Journals, Blogs, News and Web 2.0 tools. Please have a look yourself. You can personalize it at wish, and if you miss something, please mail to Webicina.

Related articles by Zemanta





Collaborating and Delivering Literature Search Results to Clinical Teams Using Web 2.0 Tools

8 08 2010

ResearchBlogging.orgThere seem to be two camps in the library, the medical and many other worlds: those who embrace Web 2.0, because they consider it useful for their practice and those who are unaware of Web 2.0 or think it is just a fad. There are only a few ways the Web 2.0-critical people can be convinced: by arguments (hardly), by studies that show evidence of its usefulness and by examples of what works and what doesn’t work.

The paper of Shamsha Damani and Stephanie Fulton published in the latest Medical Reference Services Quarterly [1] falls in the latter category. Perhaps the name Shamsha Damania rings a bell: she is a prominent twitterer and has written quest posts at this blog on several occasions (here, herehere and here)

As clinical librarians at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Shamsha and Stephanie are immersed in clinical teams and provide evidence-based literature for various institutional clinical algorithms designed for patient care.

These were some of the problems the clinical librarians encountered when sharing the results of their searches with the teams by classic methods (email):

First, team members were from different departments and were dispersed across the sprawling hospital campus. Since the teams did not meet in person very often, it was difficult for the librarians to receive timely feedback on the results of each literature search. Second, results sent from multiple database vendors were either not received or were overlooked by team members. Third, even if users received the bibliography, they still had to manually search for and locate the full text of articles. The librarians also experimented with e-mailing EndNote libraries; however, many users were not familiar with EndNote and did not have the time to learn how to use it. E-mails in general tended to get lost in the shuffle, and librarians often found themselves re-sending e-mails with attachments. Lastly, it was difficult to update the results of a literature search in a consistent manner and obtain meaningful feedback from the entire team.

Therefore, they tried several Web 2.0 tools for sharing search results with their clinical teams.
In their article, the librarians share their experience with the various applications they explored that allowed centralization of the search results, provided easy online access, and enabled collaboration within the group.

Online Reference Management Tools were the librarians’ first choice, since these are specifically designed to help users gather and store references from multiple databases and allow sharing of results. Of the available tools, Refworks was eventually not tested, because it required two sets of usernames and passwords. In contrast, EndNote Web can be accessed from any computer with a username and password. Endnoteweb is suitable for downloading and managing references from multiple databases and for retrieving full text papers as well as  for online collaboration. In theory, that is. In practice, the team members experienced several difficulties: trouble to remember the usernames and passwords, difficulties using the link resolver and navigating to the full text of each article and back to the Endnote homepage. Furthermore, accessing the full text of each article was considered a too laborious process.

Next, free Social bookmarking sites were tested allowing users to bookmark Web sites and articles, to share the bookmarks and to access them from any computer. However, most team members didn’t create an account and could therefore not make use of the collaborative features. The bookmarking sites were deemed ‘‘user-unfriendly’’, because  (1) the overall layout and the presentation of results -with the many links- were experienced as confusing,  (2) sorting possibilities were not suitable for this purpose and (3) it was impossible to search within the abstracts, which were not part of the bookmarked records. This was true both for Delicious and Connotea, even though the latter is more apt for science and medicine, includes bibliographic information and allows import and export of references from other systems. An other drawback was that the librarians needed to bookmark and comment each individual article.

Wikis (PBWorks and SharePoint) appeared most user-friendly, because they were intuitive and easy to use: the librarians had created a shared username and password for the entire team, the wiki was behind the hospital’s firewall (preferred by the team) and the users could access the articles with one click. For the librarians it was labor-consuming as they annotated the bibliographies, published it on the wiki and added persistent links to each article. It is not clear from the article how final reference lists were created by the team afterwards. Probably by cut & paste, because Wikis don’t seem suitable as a Word processor nor  are they suitable for  import and export of references.

Some Remarks

It is informative to read the pros and cons of the various Web 2.0 tools for collaborating and delivering search results. For me, it was even more valuable to read how the research was done. As the authors note (quote):

There is no ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach. Each platform must be tested and evaluated to see how and where it fits within the user’s workflow. When evaluating various Web 2.0 technologies, librarians should try to keep users at the forefront and seek feedback frequently in order to provide better service. Only after months of exploration did the librarians at MD Anderson Cancer Center learn that their users preferred wikis and 1-click access to full-text articles. Librarians were surprised to learn that users did not like the library’s link resolvers and wanted a more direct way to access information.

Indeed, there is no ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach. For that reason too, the results obtained may only apply in certain settings.

I was impressed by the level of involvement of the clinical librarians and the time they put not only in searching, but also in presenting the data, in ranking the references according to study design, publication type, and date and in annotating the references. I hope they prune the results as well, because applying this procedure to 1000 or more references is no kidding. And, although it may be ideal for the library users, not all librarians work like this. I know of no Dutch librarian who does. Because of the workload such a ready made wiki may not be feasible for many librarians .

The librarians starting point was to find an easy and intuitive Web based tool that allowed collaborating and sharing of references.
The emphasis seems more on the sharing, since end-users did not seem to collaborate via the wikis themselves. I also wonder if the simpler and free Google Docs wouldn’t fulfill most of the needs. In addition, some of the tools might have been perceived more useful if users had received some training beforehand.
The training we offer in Reference Manager, is usually sufficient to learn to work efficiently with this quite complex reference manager tool. Of course, desktop software is not suitable for collaboration online (although it could always be easily exported to an easier system), but a short training may take away most of the barriers people feel when using a new tool (and with the advantage that they can use this tool for other purposes).

In short,

Of the Web 2.0 tools tested, wikis were the most intuitive and easy to use tools for collaborating with clinical teams and for delivering the literature search results. Although it is easy to use by end-users, it seems very time-consuming for librarians, who make ready-to-use lists with annotations.

Clinical teams of MD Anderson must be very lucky with their clinical librarians.

Reference
Damani S, & Fulton S (2010). Collaborating and delivering literature search results to clinical teams using web 2.0 tools. Medical reference services quarterly, 29 (3), 207-17 PMID: 20677061

Are you a Twitter user? Tweet this!

———————————

Added: August 9th 2010, 21:30 pm

On basis of the comments below (Annemarie Cunningham) and on Twitter (@Dymphie – here and here (Dutch)) I think it is a good idea to include a figure of one of the published wiki-lists.

It looks beautiful, but -as said- where is the collaborative aspect? Like Dymphie I have the impression that these lists are no different from the “normal” reference lists. Or am I missing something? I also agree with Dymphie that instructing people in Reference Manager may be much more efficient for this purpose.

It is interesting to read Christina Pikas view about this paper. At her blog Christina’s Lis Rant (just moved to the new Scientopia platform) Christina first describes how she delivers her search results to her customers and which platforms she uses for this. Then she shares some thoughts about the paper, like:

  • they (the authors) ruled out RefWorks because it required two sets of logins/passwords – hmm, why not RefWorks with RefShare? Why two sets of passwords?
  • SharePoint wikis suck. I would probably use some other type of web part – even a discussion board entry for each article.
  • they really didn’t use the 2.0 aspects of the 2.0 tools – particularly in the case of the wiki. The most valued aspects were access without a lot of logins and then access to the full text without a lot of clicks.

Like Christina,  I would be interested in hearing other approaches – particularly using newer tools.






Presentation at the #NVB09: “Help, the doctor is drowning”

16 11 2009

15-11-2009 23-24-33 nvb congressenLast week I was invited to speak at the NVB-congress, the Dutch society for librarians and information specialists. I replaced Josje Calff in the session “the professional”, chaired by Bram Donkers of the magazine InformatieProfessional. Other sessions were: “the client”, “the technique” and “the connection”. (see program)

It was a very successful meeting, with Andrew Keen and Bas Haring in the plenary session. I understand from tweets and blogposts that @eppovannispen en @lykle who were in parallel sessions were especially interesting.
Some of the (Dutch) blogposts (Not about my presentation….pfew) are:

I promised to upload my presentation to Slideshare. And here it is.

Some slides are different from the original. First, Slideshare doesn’t allow animation, (so slides have to be added to get a similar effect), second I realized later that the article and search I showed in Ede were not yet published, so I put “top secret” in front of it.

The title refers to a Dutch book and film: “Help de dokter verzuipt” (“Help the doctor is drowning”).

Slides 2-4: NVB-tracks; why I couldn’t discuss “the professional” without explaining the changes with which the medical profession is confronted.

Slides 5-8: Clients of a medical librarian (dependent on where he/she works).

Slides 9-38: Changes to the medical profession (less time, opinion-based medicine gradually replaced by evidence based medicine, information overload, many sources, information literacy)

Slides 39-66: How medical librarians can help (‘electronic’ collection accessible from home, study landscape for medical students, less emphasis on books, up to date with alerts (email, RSS, netvibes), portals (i.e. for evidence based searching), education (i.e. courses, computer workshops, e-learning), active participation in curriculum, helping with searches or performing them).

Slides 67-68: Summary (Potential)

Slide 69: Barriers/Risks: Money, support (management, contact persons at the departments/in the curriculum), doctors like to do it theirselves (it looks easy), you have to find a way to reach them, training medical information specialists.

Slides 70-73 Summary & Credits

Here are some tweets related to this presentation.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




Vanity is the Quicksand of Reasoning: Beware of Top 100 and 50 lists!

26 08 2009

During the weekend I added some links to sites referring to this blog in the sidebar. There was the 3rd place in the Medgadget competition for the Best New Medical Weblog in 2008,  a nice critique by Danielle Worster (the Health Informaticist) in the “Library + Information Gazette”, the inclusion in the Dutch Twitterguide and a place in the Top 50 Health 2.0 Blogs list of RNCentral (”the place to learn about nursing online”) in 2008.

And recently I was included in another ranking lists, to which I was alerted by a personal email of Amber, saying:

Hi,

We just posted an article, “100 Useful Websites for Medical Librarians” (http://http://www.nursingschools.net/blog/2009/100-useful-websites-for-medical-librarians/). I thought I’d drop a quick line and let you know in case you thought it was something you’re audience would be interested in reading. Thanks!

Both the RNCentral and the nursingschools.net lists are subjective ranking list of useful sites on nurses-oriented webpages. And although subjective, they contain numerous excellent and trustworthy sites. I was honored and pleased that I was included in those lists together with the Krafty Librarian, David Rothman, the MLA, the NIH, and NLM.

In all fairness, there are also many list (in fact far more such lists) that do not include me. I remember that there was a list of 100 top librarians with quite a number of Australians and no @laikas. I found one post at Lucacept – intercepting the web saying:

BestCollegesonline.com has posted a list of the Top 100 Librarian Tweeters and I’m honoured to say I appear on the list. In fact, there are five Australian Librarians who made it on the list. The other four were heyjudeonline, neerav, bookjewel, gonty.

Unfortunately, they didn’t include Kathryn Greenhill, an amazing librarian who is currently in the US and putting out some very helpful tweets from conferences she is attending while there. She is sirexkathryn on Twitter.

Other great Teacher-Librarians to follow include …..

Check out the list and see who else is there you might like to follow. I know that my professional learning has benefited from the generous nature of Librarians who are active on Twitter.

This shows that people are pretty serious about those lists and sensitive to who is included or not.
There were some mild protests from a few people on Twitter, i.e. from Shamsha here (RT means you repost a tweet, so @shamsha retweets my retweet of @philbradley‘s tweet of the bestcollegesonline list) and from @BiteTheDust (here) regarding @laikas’  omission from the list. However, I’m sure there were many others studying the top 25, 50 or 100 lists with a frown. But wouldn’t any list look different?

25-8-2009 13-32-32 shamsha

25-8-2009 17-40-09 bitethedust

Apparently it concerns the same bestcollegesonline.com-list as referred to by Lucacept.

Back in April there was also a Top 50 Librarian Blogs- list published at the getdegrees.com. This provoked a blogpost from the UK-blog Cultural Heritage ” Top 50 (insert topic of choice here). Quote:

The colleague who alerted me to this noted that all of the blogs listed were published by librarians in the US and wondered whether we should be doing our own list of top UK librarian blogs. Further, she wondered, if we did, who would we be putting at the top and why?

Who (are on the list)? and Why? Those are good questions!

This reminded me of a recent remark of @aarontay on Twitter, He sighed something like. “Now I’ve seen 3 of those list. Who makes those lists anyway?” That is a 3rd relevant question.

I couldn’t find @aarontay’s original Tweet (Booh!, these are not archived), but here is a message I found on FriendFeed:

25-8-2009 14-31-57 aarontay 3 lists

Friendfeed not only keeps the messages but also shows the comments. Apparently Ellie (from Ellie <3 Libraries) found evidence that such sites were dodgy as @aarontay had suggested. Some quotes from her post:

Both this site (http://associatedegree.org) and Learn-gasm – who has the top 100 blogs post going around currently (www. bachelorsdegreeonline. com) are sites designed solely to earn revenue through click-throughs.

The “bachelorsdegreeonline” at the end is a tracking mechanism to allow collegedegrees.com to reward sites that send them visitors.
While all the schools linked to are legitimate schools, both are misleading sites since they only link to schools that offer an affiliate kickback. They also only link to forms to enter your contact information at third party sites, not to the actual school websites.

While the content of the top 100 blogs and 25 predictions lists is completely non-objectionable, the fact that librarians are taking these sites seriously is.

What the author is doing is trying to increase his traffic and SEO. He likely does some minimal investigation to determine what sites would have the biggest impact – so in that sense, the lists are probably somewhat representational of influential sites – like I said, the content isn’t the objectional part. He creates the page with the links to the 100 top whatever, then emails all of them to let them know they’re on the list. Every one of them that posts that they’ve made a top 100 list and links back to him increases his site’s page ranking. The more important your site is, the more it helps him, both in search engine algorithm terms (being linked to by someplace important counts for more than being linked to from less popular sites) and because it brings him more incoming traffic. Which also increases his site’s page ranking (and the chance of someone clicking through in a way that gets him paid).

…But, this particular little batch of sites that is currently targeting higher education – they are ones that are ostensibly trying to help people find colleges, choose degrees, etc., when in fact they are only linking to forms to enter your contact information for a small subset of online only colleges that offer affiliate linking programs.

…on the surface they seem related to education, some have .org addresses, but when we start looking at them critically they fail every test easily – no about page (or at least nothing informative on it), unauthored posts,  little to no original content. One of the main components of being a librarian is teaching people to think critically about information, so when we fail to do so ourselves I find it incredibly frustrating.

O.k. that hit the mark.

A good look at the sites that linked to my blog showed they were essentially the same as those mentioned by @aarontay and Ellie. With links to the same schools.

Vanity or naivety, I don’t know. I didn’t pay much attention, but I still (wanted to) quot(ed) them and didn’t doubt their intentions. Nor did I question Clinical Reader’s intentions at first (see previous post).
In some respect I really dislike to be so suspicious. But apparently you have to.
So, I hope you learned from this as well. Please be careful. Don’t link to such sites and/or remove the links from your blog.

Vanity is the quicksand of reason George Sand quotes (French Romantic writer, 1804-1876)


Top 50 Health 2.0 Blogs list
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




Biomedical Journals on Twitter

4 08 2009

Because of my vacation I was unable to publish about the list of Medical Journals on Twitter that I had initiated in the form of a spreadsheet.

Meanwhile this list has been widely covered in the medical blogosphere, i.e. here, here (nature blogs, yeah), here, here and here, (without -correct- attribution) and here (Ves Dimov) and here (Andrew Spong) (with attribution). And possibly many more.

Do I have anything to add? No not really.

Nevertheless, I would like to point my readers who may not be yet aware of this list. It is open to anybody to edit. Thus if you know of a medical journal on Twitter that is not included, then please feel free to add it to the spreadsheet (if you have Google mail) or ask me to do it for you.

For those who are not used to editing Google spreadsheets, please follow the detailed description of Andrew Spong at his blog.

The reason why I started this spreadsheet was that Walter van den Broek (drshock) asked me “how to find which medical journals on Twitter (see part of the Twitter discussion rescued from Friendfeed (tweets get lost after a few days).

4-8-2009 15-31-46 spreadsheet medical Journals friendfeedI made a spreadsheet, and asked input from the twitterverse: the easiest and most efficient way to compile a list. There were many initial suggestions of @artadobbs: (see @UCONNHealthLib). She already followed many e-resources updates, as a service for UCONN Health Library users. Ves Dimov (@drves) also had great input. The other editors have added their names on the spreadsheet (and I have added mine too now ;)). Thanks to all! With Ves I’m truly impressed of how well Google Spreadsheets work as a structured wiki.

Here is a Figure of part of the list (click to enlarge), the actual spreadsheet can be found here.

4-8-2009 17-57-28 spreadsheet twitter journals

Yesterday drshock asked me “Any pharmaceutical drug companies using twitter?” so the Medical Journal spreadsheet may not be my last one. ;)

4-8-2009 18-07-43 pharmaceutical companies twitter

Twitter discussion. Read from down up

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




Stories 3. Science or Library Work: what is more rewarding?

20 04 2009

2267526122_f4376fc6bfAmy Tenderich of Diabetesmine, will celebrate her birthday at the very same day as she hosts the next Grand Round. She has therefore chosen a very appropriate theme (see announcement):

I’m favoring any and all posts having to do with birthdays and special occasions – or anything that smacks of serendipity, perks, or gifts related to the work you all do.

First of all I would like to congratulate Amy on her birthday.

I have been hesitating whether I should contribute to this round. It is not an easy subject and a bit out of scope. However, thinking about it, many ideas came up and it even became difficult to choose one. But here it is. It is even the first post in a series: STORIES, a selection of personal stories.

Most of you will know that I’m a medical librarian by profession, but a medical biologist by education. Many years I worked as a scientist, with mice, patients, cells, DNA and proteins.3419163183_91968b96d6

I was an avid scientist. My motivation was to unravel mechanisms and understand life. I liked to ask questions: “why is this? why do I find that? how does it work?” The greatest reward you can get is: looking for explanations and finding the answer to a question. Thinking about it and discussing it with others is exciting.The more difficult a question is, the more rewarding it is to find the answer. The gift that science gives you is science itself.

In those twenty years I did have my little successes. I had a press conference at a congress (1) (because it was the only subject that was understandable for the public) and I had two papers that were frequently cited (2).

The finding that gave rise to those two publications was very serendipitous. We found a very tiny band in B cells that were used as a negative (!) control for follicular lymphoma in a PCR for the t(14;18) chromosomal translocation. This translocation is considered the hallmark of this type of B-cell cancer. If this was true, it would mean that the lymphoma-associated t(14;18) involving the BCL2 oncogene could also occur outside the context of malignancy. My task was to prove that this was true. This was not an easy task, because we had to exclude that the tiny bands in the tonsils were due to contamination with exponentially amplified tumor DNA. A lot of tricks were needed to enable direct sequencing of the tonsil DNA to show that each chromosomal breakpoint was unique. To be honest, there were quite some moments of despair and most of the time I believed I was hunting ghosts. Certainly when the first band I sequenced was from a contaminating tumor. But finally we succeeded.

And although science can be very rewarding:

  • Most ideas aren’t that new.
  • There are many dead leads and negative results (see cartoon).
  • Experiments can fail.
  • There is a lot of competition
  • It takes very long before you get results (depending on the type of experiment)
  • It takes even longer before you get enough results to publish
  • It takes still longer before you have written down the first version of the paper
  • … and to wait for the first comments of the co-authors (see cartoon)
  • … and to rewrite the paper and to wait …
  • … and to submit to the journal and wait..
  • … to get the first rejection, because your paper didn’t get a high enough priority
  • and to rewrite, wait for the comments of the co-authors, adapt and submit
  • to be rejected for the second time by referees that don’t understand a bit of your subject or are competitors
  • to rewrite etcetera, till it is accepted…and published
  • to wait till somebody other than you or your co-authors find the paper relevant enough to cite.
  • but most importantly even with very good results that make you feel very happy and content:
    • each answer raises more questions
    • most research, whatever brilliant, is just a drop in the ocean or worse:
    • it gets invalidated

I loved to do research and I loved to be a researcher. However, it is difficult for post-doc to keep finding a job and wait for the contract renewals each year. So almost 4 years ago, just before another renewal of the contract, I was happy to get the opportunity to become a medical librarian at a place not far from where I lived. In fact, after all these years it is my first permanent job.

And it is a far more rewarding job than I ever had before, although perhaps not as challenging as research.

  • Results are more immediate.
  • Answers are clearcut (well mostly)
  • People (doctors, nurses, students) are very happy when you learn them how to search (well generally)
  • they are also happy when you do the search for them
  • or when you help them doing it
  • It is very rewarding to develop courses, to teach, to educate
  • the job has many facets

The rewards can vary from a happy smile, a hand shake and “a thank you” to acknowledgments and even co-authorships in papers. Sometimes I even get tangible presents, like chocolates, cookies, wine or gift tokens.

Last week a patron suddenly said when seeing the presents gathered: “Is it your birthday?”
Presumably it is about time to drink the wine I got.Cheers!

2717145005_0546fa0755

Photo credits (Flickr-CC):





“Ask a Librarian” a new series in the JAAPA.

22 03 2009

The Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants (JAAPA) features a new online column : “Ask a Librarian”. Or as JAAPA states it: the inaugural installment of JAAPA’s first online only department. This column is a co-authored by Jim Anderson, Physician Assistant, and Susan Klawansky, Librarian. It aims to promote collaboration of PA’s and other clinicians with medical librarians, address questions from physician assistants and point to resources, including nnlm.gov.

This is a very good initiative, an example that deserves to be followed by other publishers.

The first questions answered were:

  1. Can you explain what a MeSH Heading is? I always hear that term, but I don’t understand what it means. Is it something I need to know to do a good search?
  2. I need to find an article about an exotic genetic condition of one of my patients. I work in a hospital in a rural and remote area in Montana, and while I have access to the Internet, I don’t have access to a library or a librarian. How can I get help online finding an article, and when I find a reference, how can I get the full-text?

Relevant questions, but the answers are rather superficial and short on the one hand (one paragraph long), but too long-winded at the other hand.

For instance, the second question begins as follows:

Are you in luck! Thanks to the Web, medical librarians are everywhere, floating around in the ether, just waiting for questions like this. As a matter of fact, if you look really quick right now, you might see one sitting there up on your shoulder! But seriously, if you have the Internet, you have a librarian…

to simply tell, one can contact nnlm.gov. for this question (web or telephone)…

This information could be much more to the point. On the other hand I wonder, is there no valuable information in (for instance) the OMIM database that the PA/clinician could get for free?

Again, it is a good initiative and I hope JAAPA will succeed in making this a successful column.

HATTIP : pat_devine (twitter)





Educational Videos about Library Stuff

21 03 2009

Yesterday @alisha alerted me to a post of Sheila Webber at the information-literacy blog about a wonderful series of YouTube videos by Llordllam with hand puppets as actors. The videos are a mix of educational videos aimed at librarians, information scientists and library readers. The leading actors are Goose the librarian and Professor Weasel the academic (patron).

The following YouTube video is really superb as well as hilarous. With a typical british sense of humor it tries to make you understand Academic Copyright. Prof Weasel struggles to understand the problems with the traditional journal publication system. Look how he is fooled by the publisher rat.

And for librarians and librarian users this one is a must. Boolean operators explained. Think the jam/bread example will work better than my epistaxis/child example, so who knows I will adapt my slides.

And finally the video “Your Library: A User Centric Experience”. This feels very familiar (the user becomes the king, see also the Flikr pictures in the side bar of our library)

More video’s of Goose and Weasel see page of llordllama on youtube.com and  a facebook page for fans of the video Randy Weasel, Kooei Goose and others

—-

Now, not a Llordllam/Goose/Weasel production, but a very useful video (by paulrobesonlibrary) to illustrate to students the (unusefulness) of Wikipedia as their primary research tool.
Seen at Phil Bradley’s Weblog (No, you can not lower the speed)





A New Blog Carnival: Medlib’s Round

13 01 2009

I’ve participated in several Blog Carnivals in the field of Medicine (and hence called Grand Round). i.e. The Grand Round, the Dutch Grand Round (i.e. see here), and SurgeXperiences. Blog Carnivals are a regular compilation of the “best blogs in a certain area”, hosted by a different blogger each time.

I enjoy participating in a Grand Round, either as submitter or as hosts, and being a medical librarian, I asked myself, why aren’t there any medical blog carnivals around?

Participating in a blog carnival is easy and informative. Why should medical librarians do this? Because you get a quick overview of the best posts in the field of medical librarianship, you learn to know other librarians, you keep well informed about what is going on and you generate traffic to your site (both as a host and a submitter).

Finally librarians not having a blog or people not being medical librarians (health 2.0, web 2.0 people, doctors) might also be interested in getting a quick overview of a field that has their interest.

These are the facts/rules:

  • The Blog Carnival’s name is Medlib’s Round. Please let me now if you have a more original carnival title.
  • For the time being it is a once-monthly Grand Round. The publications are on Tuesday, the submissions are due at Saturdays 00.00 (Dutch Time), or 18.00 EST.
  • All submissions and the Grand Round itself should be written (at least partially) in English.
  • Whether there is a theme or not is up to the host. The advice though is not to be too strict and give a nice compilation.
  • The host posts a call for submissions as early as possible at his or her blog.
  • The schedule and the archive are listed on Laika’s Medliblog on a separate page here.
  • You can submit your post (the permalink) to the blog carnival here or mail the next host before the deadline
    .
  • The first Grand Round (deadline February 7th) is at my place: Laika’s MedLibLog. The theme is rather loose: write about a subject that is close to your heart, whether it is about your patrons, education, PubMed, twitter …. whatever you find important.

What should you do now?

  • Tell me whether you like the idea or not and whether you want to join.
  • Write a post and submit it here (preferred) or mail me at laika dot spoetnik at gmail dot com. laika.spoetnik@gmail.com
  • Tell me whether you want to host a next edition: March*, April, May or June. (comment, mail,twitter)!!
  • Inform others that a Medlibrarian Grand Round is in the making.

Added:

We have a host for the March edition: Dragonfly. Thanks @aldricham

** For schedule see: medlibs-archive

*** Several librarians asked for a more extensive description. I will post this soon.







PubMed Online Search Clinic on ATM!

17 07 2008

Just a short note at the last moment.

Back from vacation I picked up some twitter and blog messages announcing a PubMed search clinic offered at July 17 (today!) at 2pm Eastern time (8pm Amsterdam/Paris time, see timetable throughout the world).

A 30 minute online search clinic will be presented by the NLM® and the National Training Center and Clearinghouse (NTCC) via Adobe® ConnectTM on Thursday, July 17th (2pm ET). The presentation will cover changes to PubMed including changes to how PubMed handles your search (the new automatic term mapping process), the citation sensor, and the beta Advanced Search page.

There is a maximum capacity of 300 participants, on a first come first served base. However, the clinic will be recorded and will be available for viewing later.

To follow the clinic log in at: https://webmeeting.nih.gov/pmupdate08/

or: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/clinics/pmupdate08.html.
Here you find more info about the clinic, as well as tips for successful participation in the clinic. Be sure to test it beforehand.

Sources:

The Krafty Librarian: @Krafty (twitter) and several posts on her blog.

Nikki (Eagledawgs) guest post on David Rothman’s blog

Background info on what others have blogged about recent Pubmed can be found on another Krafty Librarian’s post and several of my previous post, including PubMed: Past, Present And Future, PART II

************************

Even op de valreep.

Net terug van vakantie zag ik enkele twitters en blogberichten die een “PubMed search clinic” aankondigden.

Deze begint om 8 hr p.m. (welke tijd waar?).

Het duurt 30 minuten en gaat over de recente veranderingen in Pubmed, de nieuwe ATM (automatic term mapping), de citation sensor en Advanced Search Beta.

Er kunnen 300 mensen deelnemen, volgens het “wie het eerst komt, het eerst maalt” principe. De clinic wordt wel opgenomen, zodat je hem later nog eens kunt bekijken.

Inloggen voor 19.00: https://webmeeting.nih.gov/pmupdate08/

Meer info op: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/clinics/pmupdate08.html.
Inclusief tips om de clinic goed te kunnen volgen.

Bronnen:

The Krafty Librarian: @Krafty (twitter) en verschillende blogberichten.

Nikki (Eagledawgs) te gast op het blog van David Rothman.

Achtergrondinfo over wat anderen van de veranderingen vinden zijn ook te vinden de site van Krafty Librarian (zie hier). Enkele van mijn eerdere berichten zoals PubMed: Past, Present And Future, PART II zijn er ook aan gewijd.





Forget Hyves. Go Twitter!

6 06 2008

Week #10 of the Spoetnik course (library web 2.0 course) was devoted to Hyves (Holland’s most popular website to keep in touch with friends) and other social networking services, like Facebook.

Well finally, at the end of the Spoetnik course, I accepted the invitation of Brughagedis to become his friend at Hyves and in my turn invited a handful of others. I brightened up my background. That was it. My account: http://laika-spoetnik.hyves.nl/)

When I gave an overview of all things learned at Spoetnik (in Dutch) at my blog, Dymphie/Dee adviced me to start twittering, as twitter has its good points -according to her-).

So, May the 27th I started twittering and invited some spoetnik-collegues, although mostly in vain (“not yet another account, please!”). And I’m addicted allready!

Twitter is a free social networking and microblogging service utilising instant messaging, SMS or a web interface. It is meant to keep in touch with friends, relatives and soulmates. It is NOT just bladibladibla in 2 sentences. You have 3 kinds of twitter-messages:

  1. Tell the word what you are doing. Like “I’m eating an apple”, “I’m going home now”, i.e. the Bladibladibla-stuff.
  2. Linking to the posts on your own blog/webpage, like a kind of alert.
  3. Sharing new ideas, thoughts and links to interesting pages.

Well 1 is all right, but only if you’re interested in the people you follow. If you know them or if you would like to know them. So I like the follow Spoetniks for this reason alone.

2 is bad. I dislike it, when one only links to oneselve and doesn’t twitter about anything (1 and 2) else. I cancelled a subscription because of this. I felt taken in, when each time I followed a link I arrived at the same post already found through RSS, Technorati and Co-comment.

3 is it! It is the reason why I became addicted to Twitter in just a few days. I’ve seen so much ‘inside information’, good ideas and wonderful links passing by. The Medlib Geekery site is worth mentioning. I particularly like the contributions of eagledawg, davidlrothman and pfanderson till now. A very good mixture of 1, 2 and 3.

Are there any cons? No, not really.

  • You can take an-RSS feed to reduce the number of readings.
  • However, some things are not directly clear to me. E.g. why can’t I respond to the MedLib-twitter?
  • And if twitter is down, you are down (dependency)
  • Be restrictive in who to follow and
  • even more so in who to accept as a follower. There are some people out there, who are using you to attract people to their site (with dubious content and links). But you can block them. I just blocked Billbettler (all about money)

Want to join: Go to Twitter: http://twitter.com/

Want to be my follower, be my guest: https://twitter.com/laikas

Interested in how twitter works? Look at the famous twitter in plain English by the commoncraft

Interested in why twitter works? Look at this compilation of twitter-experiences of followers from problogger

(the latter video as well as the addicted twitter-figure were picked up from http://www.omolenaar.com/

—————————

NL flag NL vlagWeek #10 van de Spoetnik cursus ging over Hyves, en andere sociale netwerken zoals Facebook.

Pas na week #13 ging ik in op de uitnodiging van Brughagedis in om vrienden te worden op Hyves. Op mijn beurt nodigde ik weer een aantal anderen uit. Ik leukte mijn pagina een beetje op en dat was het zo’n beetje.

Toen ik een overzicht gaf over alle spoetnikweken (“alle 13 goed”) kreeg ik als commentaar van Dymphie/Dee : “Maar begin zeker met Twitteren: daar zitten ook hele leuke kanten aan!”

Dus een week geleden ben ik aan het twitteren geslagen. Ik heb meteen enkele spoetnikers uitgenodigd, maar de meesten sloegen de uitnodiging af: “jé, niet weer een account, sorry!”

Ik ben er al helemaal verknocht eraan.

Twitter is een populaire dienst die vanuit de Verenigde Staten is komen overwaaien naar Europa. Het combineert webloggen met instant messaging, SMS of via een web-interface. Via deze dienst kun je makkelijk contact houden met vrienden, kennissen en geestverwanten. Ik kwam 3 soorten berichten tegen:

  • Mededelingen in de trant van: “ik eet nu een appel” of “ik ga nu naar mijn werk”
  • Links naar eigen website of blog (a.h.w. een alert).
  • Delen van nieuwe ideeen, gedachten, informatie (evt. door linken).
  • 1 is o.k. als het iemand is die je kent of graag wil leren kennen. Ligt er natuurlijk een beetje aan wat hij/zij te vertellen heeft. Vind het leuk om zo iets meer van de andere spoetnikers te weten. Moeten ze het natuurlijk wel niet bij 1 dag twitteren laten…. ;)

    2 vind ik niets. Heb 1 abonnement afgezegd, omdat diegene continu naar zijn eigen posts linkte. Denk je iets nieuws tegen te komen, kom je voor de zoveelste keer op hetzelfde bericht (via RSS, Technorati and Co-comment).

    3 is het helemaal. Zoveel informatie en ideeen gekregen op deze manier. De Medlib Geekery site (geheel op mijn vakgebied) is een aparte vermelding zeker waard. Ik vind de bijdragen van eagledawg, davidlrothman and pfanderson helemaal tof.

    Zijn er ook nadelen. Nauwelijks.

    • Je kunt je abonneren op een RSS-feed, zodat je er maar op bepaalde momenten naar kijkt (bij mij niet nodig).
    • Sommige zaken spreken niet vanzelf. Ik weet bijvoorbeeld niet hoe je een reactie kunt geven, bijv. op de Medlib Geekery site. Je schijnt de twitterpost ook op je blog te kunnen zetten. lijkt me iets teveel van het goede.
    • Als twitter uit de lucht is, zoals onlangs, ben jij het ook (in dit opzicht dan).
    • Het blijft behapbaar als je niet teveel mensen volgt.
    • Let ook op wie jou volgt. Sommige mensen gedragen zich als spammers en lokken andere mensen naar hun site. De info en de links op hun site zijn soms dubieus. Gelukkig kun je ze blokken!

    Wil je het proberen? Ga dan naar Twitter: http://twitter.com/

    Wil je mij volgen? Mijn pagina vind je op https://twitter.com/laikas

    Zie verder hierboven voor enkele aardige video’s over twitter. Misschien tot twitters! :)





    MLA 2008: connections (and Spoetnik)

    22 05 2008

    The annual meeting of the Medical Library Association (MLA) that took place this week in Chicago focused on the future of librarianship and (thus) on connections:

    Only connect!…Only connect the prose and the passion… Live in fragments no longer…Only connect.”

    —E. M. Forster, Howards End (1910)

    Well connecting that’s what they do, the US-librarians. No off-season. In line with the theme of MLA’08 they keep on blogging and connecting even when at a meeting.

    It seems like most tools we learned during the Spoetnik-course (weeks #1-#13) (see about and the Dutch Spoetnik-program ) were applied by the advanced medical-library-bloggers.

    15 Bloggers were invited by mail (#1) to become “official conference bloggers” (#2) for MLA 2008, including Michelle Kraft, David Rothman and Eric Schnell. In addition there was at least one unofficial MLA-blogger.

    Their posts were displayed on an official Wetpaint-Wiki (#9), whereas David Rothman pulled together an aggregated Yahoo Pipes feed (#3) of all the MLA postings using Feedburner. I took a subscription, but still have to screen it (way behind again).

    Of course all bloggers already are del.ici.ous (#7), do their librarything (#5), stumble upon, digg it (#13) and LinkedIn (#10).

    Some bloggers shared their agenda using google calendar (#8), or made some appointments by mail (#1) or chatting(#4) and there was also a MLA twitter + feed (#13, #3). Unfortunately there was far less twittering, tweetering and blogging (#13) and thus far less connections than planned, because according to the kraftylibrarian “there was no freaking network on which to be social..” (No wireless access). Bit stupid for a meeting on networks…… :(

    In addition there was a MLA-flickr-group (#6) , and some bloggers placed a you tube-(#13) or other video- or podcast (#11) on their blog. I will copy (share) one in the next post.

    Interested in more: well (if you are a MLA-member?!) you can watch a live Video Webcast on the first plenary session on “Web 2.0 Tools for Librarians: Description, Demonstration, Discussion, and Debate”.

    Alas I’m not, but several video’s, links and posts on the blogs mentioned above are informative as well -and freely available-. See for instance the blogs that I read (and consulted for this post):

    Michelle Kraft – The Krafty Librarian

    David Rothman – davidrothman.net

    Eric Schnell – The Medium is the Message

    tunaiskewl? ratcatcher? – omg tuna is kewl






    BMI bijeenkomst april 2008

    21 04 2008

    Afgelopen vrijdag 18 April was de Landelijke Dag BMI, CCZ, PBZ en WEB&Z. De BMI is afdeling Biomedische Informatie van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Beroepsbeoefenaren (NVB). De andere afkortingen staan voor werkgroepen/commissies binnen de NVB: CCZ = Centrale Catalogus Ziekenhuisbibliotheken, BPZ = Bibliothecarissen van Psychiatrische Zorginstellingenen en WEB&Z = voorheen Biomedische werkgroep VOGIN.

    Het programma bestond uit 3 ALV’s, van de CCZ, de BPZ en de BMI, afgewisseld met 3 lezingen. Een beetje lastig 3 ALV’s en 1 zaal. Dat betekende in mijn geval dat ik wel de BMI-ALV heb bijgewoond, maar tijdens de andere ALV’s (langdurig) in de koffieruimte annex gang moest wachten. Weliswaar heb ik die nuttig en plezierig doorgebracht, maar het zou wat gestroomlijnder kunnen. Ook vond ik het bijzonder jammer dat er nauwelijks een plenaire discussie was na de lezingen en dat men geacht werd de discussie letterlijk in de wandelgang voort te zetten. En stof tot discussie was er…..

    Met name de eerste lezing deed de nodige stof opwaaien. Helaas heb ik deze voor de helft gemist, omdat ik in het station Hilversum dat van Amersfoort meende te herkennen ;) . Gelukkig heeft Ronald van Dieën op zijn blog ook de BMI-dag opgetekend, zodat ik de eerste punten van hem kan overnemen.

    De eerste spreker was Geert van der Heijden, Universitair hoofddocent Klinische Epidemiologie bij het Julius Centrum voor Gezondheidswetenschappen van het UMC Utrecht. Geert is coördinator van het START-blok voor zesdejaars (Supervised Training in professional Attitude, Research and Teaching) en van de Academische Vaardigheden voor het GNK Masteronderwijs. Ik kende Geert oppervlakkig, omdat wij (afzonderlijk) geinterviewd waren voor het co-assistenten blad “Arts in Spe” over de integratie van het EBM-zoekonderwijs in het curriculum. Nu ik hem hier in levende lijve heb gehoord, lees ik zijn interview met heel andere ogen. Ik zag toen meer de overeenkomsten, nu de verschillen.

    Zijn presentatie had als titel: “hoe zoekt de clinicus?”. Wie verwachtte dat Geert zou vertellen hoe de gemiddelde clinicus daadwerkelijk zoekt komt komt bedrogen uit. Geert vertelde vooral de methode van zoeken die hij artsen aanleert/voorhoudt. Deze methode is bepaald niet ingeburgerd en lijkt diametraal te staan tegenover de werkwijze van medisch informatiespecialisten, per slot zijn gehoor van dat moment. Alleen al het feit dat hij beweert dat je VOORAL GEEN MeSH moet gebruiken druist in tegen wat wij medisch informatiespecialisten leren en uitdragen. Het is de vraag of de zaal zo stil was, omdat zij overvallen werd door al het schokkends wat er gezegd werd of omdat men niet wist waar te beginnen met een weerwoord. Ik zag letterlijk een aantal monden openhangen van verbazing.

    Zoals Ronald al stelde was dit een forse knuppel in het hoenderhok van de ‘medisch informatiespecialisten’. Ik deel echter niet zijn mening dat Geert het prima kon onderbouwen met argumenten. Hij is weliswaar een begenadigd spreker en bracht het allemaal met verve, maar ik had toch sterk de indruk dat zijn aanpak vooral practice- of eminence- en niet evidence-based was.

    Hieronder enkele van zijn stellingen, 1ste 5 overgenomen van Ronald:

    1. “Een onderzoeker probeert publicatie air miles te verdienen met impact factors”
    2. “in Utrecht krijgen de studenten zo’n 500 uur Clinical Epidemiology en Evidence Based Practice, daar waar ze in Oxford (roots van EBM) slechts 10 uur krijgen”
    3. “contemporary EBM tactics (Sicily statement). (zie bijvoorbeeld hier:….)
    4. “fill knowledge gaps met problem solving skills”
    5. EBM = eminence biased medicine. Er zit veel goeds tussen, maar pas op….
    6. Belangrijkste doelstelling van literatuuronderzoek: reduceer Numbers Needed to Read.
    7. Vertrouw nooit 2e hands informatie (dit noemen wij voorgefilterde of geaggregeerde evidence) zoals TRIP, UpToDate, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, BMJ Clinical Evidence. Men zegt dat de Cochrane Systematic Reviews zo goed zijn, maar éen verschuiving van een komma heeft duizenden levens gekost. Lees en beoordeel dus de primaire bronnen!
    8. De Cochrane Collaboration houdt zich alleen maar bezig met systematische reviews van interventies, het doet niets aan de veel belangrijker domeinen “diagnose” en “prognose”.
    9. PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) werkt alleen voor therapie, niet voor andere vraagstukken.
    10. In plaats daarvan de vraag in 3 componenten splitsen: het domein (de categorie patiënten), de determinant (de diagnostische test, prognostische variabele of behandeling) en de uitkomst (ziekte, mortaliteit en …..)
    11. Zoeken doe je als volgt: bedenk voor elk van de 3 componenten zoveel mogelijk synoniemen op papier, verbind deze met “OR”, verbind de componenten met “AND”.
    12. De synoniemen alleen in titel en abstract zoeken (code [tiab]) EN NOOIT met MeSH (MEDLINE Subject Headings). MeSH zijn NOOIT bruikbaar volgens Geert. Ze zijn vaak te breed, ze zijn soms verouderd en je vindt er geen recente artikelen mee, omdat de indexering soms 3-12 maanden zou kosten.
    13. NOOIT Clinical Queries gebruiken. De methodologische filters die in PubMed zijn opgenomen, de zogenaamde Clinical Queries zijn enkel gebaseerd op MeSH en daarom niet bruikbaar. Verder zijn ze ontwikkeld voor heel specifieke onderwerpsgebieden, zoals cardiologie, en daarom niet algemeen toepasbaar.
    14. Volgens de Cochrane zou je als je een studie ‘mist’ de auteurs moeten aanschrijven. Dat lukt van geen kant. Beter is het te sneeuwballen via Web of Science en related articles en op basis daarvan JE ZOEKACTIE AAN TE PASSEN.

    Wanneer men volgens de methode van der Heijden werkt zou men in een half uur klaar zijn met zoeken en in 2 uur de artikelen geselecteerd en beoordeeld hebben. Nou dat doe ik hem niet na.

    De hierboven in rood weergegeven uitspraken zijn niet (geheel) juist. 8. Therapie is naar mijn bescheiden mening nog steeds een belangrijk domein; daarnaast is gaat de Cochrane Collaboration ook SR’s over diagnostische accuratesse studies schrijven. 13. in clinical queries worden (juist) niet alleen MeSH gebruikt.

    In de groen weergegeven uitspraken kan ik me wel (ten dele) vinden, maar ze zijn niet essentieel verschillend van wat ik (men?) zelf nastreef(t)/doe(t), en dat wordt wel impliciet gesuggereerd.
    Vele informatiespecialisten zullen ook:

    • 6 nastreven (door 7 te doen weliswaar),
    • 9 benadrukken (de PICO is inderdaad voor interventies ontwikkeld en minder geschikt voor andere domeinen)
    • en deze analoog aan 10 opschrijven (zij het dat we de componenten anders betitelen).
    • Het aanschrijven van auteurs (14) gebeurt als uiterste mogelijkheid. Eerst doen we de opties die door Geert als alternatief aangedragen worden: het sneeuwballen met als doel de zoekstrategie aan te passen. (dit weet ik omdat ik zelf de cursus “zoeken voor Cochrane Systematic Reviews” geef).

    Als grote verschillen blijven dan over: (7) ons motto: geaggregeerde evidence eerst en (12) zoeken met MeSH versus zoeken in titel en abstract en het feit dat alle componenten met AND verbonden worden, wat ik maar mondjesmaat doe. Want: hoe meer termen/componenten je met “AND” combineert hoe groter de kans dat je iets mist. Soms moet het, maar je gaat niet a priori zo te werk.

    Ik vond het een beetje flauw dat Geert aanhaalde dat er door één Cochrane reviewer een fout is gemaakt, waardoor er duizenden doden zouden zijn gevallen. Laat hij dan ook zeggen dat door het initiatief van de Cochrane er levens van honderd duizenden zijn gered, omdat eindelijk goed in kaart is gebracht welke therapieën nu wel en welke nu niet effectief zijn. Bij alle studies geldt dat je afhankelijk bent van hoe goed te studie is gedaan, van een juiste statistiek etcetera. Voordeel van geaggregeerde evidence is nu net dat een arts niet alle oorspronkelijke studies hoeft door te lezen om erachter te komen wat werkt (NNR!!!). Stel dat elke arts voor elke vraag ALLE individuele studies moet zoeken, beoordelen en moet samenvatten….. Dat zou, zoals de Cochrane het vaak noemt ‘duplication of effort’ zijn. Maar wil je precies weten hoe het zit, of wil je heel volledig zijn dan zul je inderdaad zelf de oorspronkelijke studies moeten zoeken en beoordelen.
    Wel grappig trouwens dat 22 van de 70 artikelen waarvan Geert medeauteur is tot de geaggregeerde evidence (inclusief Cochrane Reviews) gerekend kunnen worden….. Zou hij de lezers ook afraden deze artikelen te selecteren? ;)

    Voor wat betreft het zoeken via de MeSH. Ik denk dat weinig ‘zoekers’ louter en alleen op MeSH zoeken. Wij gebruiken ook tekstwoorden. In hoeverre er gebruik van gemaakt wordt hangt erg van het doel en de tijd af. Je moet steeds afwegen wat de voor- en de nadelen zijn. Door geen MeSH te gebruiken, maak je ook geen gebruik van de synoniemen functie en de mogelijkheid tot exploderen (nauwere termen meenemen). Probeer maar eens in een zoekactie alle synoniemen voor kanker te vinden: cancer, cancers , tumor, tumour(s), neoplasm(s), malignancy (-ies), maar daarnaast ook alle verschilende kankers: adenocarcinoma, lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, etc. Met de MeSH “Neoplasms” vind je in een keer alle spellingswijzen, synoniemen en alle soorten kanker te vinden.

    Maar in ieder geval heeft Geert ons geconfronteerd met een heel andere zienswijze en ons een spiegel voorgehouden. Het is soms goed om even wakkergeschud te worden en na te denken over je eigen (soms te ?) routinematige aanpak. Geert ging niet de uitdaging uit de weg om de 2 zoekmethodes met elkaar te willen vergelijken. Dus wie weet wat hier nog uit voortvloeit. Zouden we tot een consensus kunnen komen?

    De volgende praatjes waren weliswaar minder provocerend, maar toch zeker de moeite waard.

    De web 2.0-goeroe Wouter Gerritsma (WoWter) praatte ons bij over web 2.0, zorg 2.0 en (medische) bibliotheek 2.0. Zeer toepasselijk met zeer moderne middelen: een powerpointpresentatie via slideshare te bewonderen en met een WIKI, van waaruit hij steeds enkele links aanklikte. Helaas was de internetverbinding af en toe niet zo 2.0, zodat bijvoorbeeld deze beeldende YOU TUBE-uitleg Web 2.0 … The machine is us/ing us niet afgespeeld kon worden. Maar handig van zo’n wiki is natuurlijk dat je het alsnog kunt opzoeken en afspelen. In de presentatie kwamen wat practische voorbeelden aan de orde (bibliotheek, zorg, artsen) en werd ingegaan op de verschillende tools van web 2.0: RSS, blogs, gepersonaliseerde pagina’s, tagging en wiki’s. Ik was wel even apetrots dat mijn blog alsmede dat van de bibliotheker even als voorbeeld getoond werden van beginnende (medische bieb) SPOETNIKbloggers. De spoetnikcursus en 23 dingen werden sowieso gepromoot om te volgen als beginner. Voor wie meer wil weten, kijk nog eens naar de wiki: het biedt een mooi overzicht.

    Als laatsten hielden Tanja van Bon en Sjors Clemens een duo-presentatie over e-learning. Als originele start begonnen ze met vragen te stellen in plaats van ermee te eindigen. Daarna gaven ze een leuke introductie over e-learning en lieten ze zien hoe ze dit in hun ziekenhuis implementeerden.

    Tussen en na de lezingen was er ruim tijd om met elkaar van gedachten te wisselen, aan het slot zelfs onder genot van een borrel voor wie niet de BOB was. Zeker een heel geslaagde dag. Hier ga ik vaker naar toe!

    **************************************************************************************************

    met de W: ik zie dat de bibliotheker inmiddels ook een stukje heeft geschreven over de lezing van Geert van der Heiden. Misschien ook leuk om dit te lezen.

    N.B. VOOR WIE DE HELE PRESENTATIE VAN GEERT WIL ZIEN, DEZE IS MET ZIJN TOESTEMMING GEZET OP

    http://www.slideshare.net/llkool/bmi-18-april-2008-geert-van-der-heijden/








    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 610 other followers