I quite agree to the proposed list of prorities and to the preceding comments of my colleague Vivienne that EBM filters would save a lot of time, not only by identifying the best terms but also retrieval strategies.I have a year now of regularly reading ELIP journal and it had helped me a lot in finding the best ways to qualitatively and effectively and timely meet the requirementas of managers and researchers I serve.For example the articles: Lisa Cotter et al.-"Adding SPICE to an intranet site: Arecipe to enhance usability" EBLIP 2006, 1:1, and Wendy A. Abbot-"Persuasive Evidence: Improving Customer service through EBL" have had an impact on my work i adopting them partially.I think the new search engines of research profile as Scirus and newsletters add to our solutions of finding the most reliable sources.

Paul Herbert Buddy Group 8:

I feel that skills in conducting and analysing research are crucial to the future of EBLIP. I have yet to carry out or analyse any research in relation to my professional post and would feel a bit rusty as I haven't done any since University. There needs to be a culture where this is encouraged in the workplace with training provided in skills such as research and appraisal . I understand that any studies carried out would have to be seen as worthwhile in terms of answering a particular question or solving a problem faced by the service. It is up to staff and management to work together to identify topics which could be covered. I agree with Vivienne when she points out the usefulness of EBM filters for EBLIP, that would be very helpful for all those seeking to access relevant articles. Lluka also points out the EBLIP journal which is a great publication but I don't think it has been publicised widely enough as I hadn't been aware of it until I started the FOLIO course.

It seems we all agree with Vivienne! I too would find EBM filters very useful. I am definitely going to have to make time to take a closer look at the EBLIP journal, although I also agree with Vivienne's comment that articles in this journal may not reach the Managers.
From the list of priorities given, I think I would find the register of rigorous studies and also the critical appraisal checklist most useful in terms of saving time and also ensuring one was looking at the best information available. I find when I have used tools such as Cristal, it really makes me look more closely at an article. All too often I begin by thinking I've found a really good piece of research, but then I find that actually it isn't as thorough or as unbiased as I might have originally thought.
Practice guidelines would be useful, but I feel would need a degree of flexibility to cater for the very different situations in which we work and practice.

I agree that EBM filters would be useful, and also feel that summaries of available evidence are a big priority. Not all practitioners would have the time to conduct a thorough survey of the literature and critically appraise relevant articles. Also, access to library and information-related journals may be limited where subscriptions are required, so reviews or summaries would be useful for those who do not have access to the full text of articles.
To the list of priorities, I would probably add promoting EBLIP to employers or to staff at senior management level, so that staff are encouraged to adopt an evidence-based approach, where applicable. I agree with Paul Herbert's suggestions that there would need to be a culture in the workplace where conducting and analysing research is encouraged, and where relevant training is provided.

Paul mentioned Research skills, and I'd be totally with him on this. My idea of EBLIP is as a "one-stop-shop" (I don't like that term, but can't think of a better one) for evidence based library practice tools and toolkits, standards, guidelines etc., so yes, also, to all who mentioned filters. I had originally thought that, as the amount of literature grows, we need a controlled vocabulary, but I've a feeling the Web 2.0 is gradually eroding the need for this.

Vivienne Bernath. Anne's reference to Web 2.0 fits with my feeling that developing an open EBLIP wiki would be timely. It could include a section on research methodology to help people like Paul who would like to start but don't feel they have the experience to do this unaided. Not sure that I agree fully with Anne though that Web 2.0 will replace the need for controlled vocab, while we are still using the traditional methods of scholarly publication. Maybe Web 2.0 could help us develop our own controlled vocab (tags) though!

Oh, there ARE open access EBLIP wikis - see http://eblibrarianship.pbwiki.com which links amongst other things to the Australian EBLIP Toolkit at http://www.newcastle.edu.au/service/library/gosford/ebl/toolkit/

I agree with colleagues who mention skills in conducting research as one of the major priorities.I would also like to have a register of rigorous studies, as well as a register of ongoing studies - that would be helpful both while looking for answers to our quetsions and while planning our own research

I was going to comment on the need for EBLIP toolkits, and then Vivienne kindly pointed us in the direction of one! I've had a quick look and it looks like a great resource but I think a toolkit could be extended to contain a register of rigorous/ongoing studies, as like Mary and Irina, I would find this useful. I also like to be kept updated on a topic maybe through RSS feeds and autoalerts, as it's important to be kept up to date with the available evidence. Practice guidelines are a big wish for me. Evidence based decision making, although an important process can be a very time consuming one. If I need guidance on something, it would be ideal to consult a guideline rather than have to start the process from the beginning.

This is great. Thanks to Vivienne for the pointer to the toolkit - even though I regularly help users to write papers on their topics, the thought of doing some research in my own area is daunting. Now, armed with EBLIP links and links and pointers provided by colleagues on this course, really there's no excuse. Also, taking up Natalie's comment about keeping up-to-date, it would be great to have a horizon-scanning alert. Taking Irina's comments on board, perhaps a forum to coordinate and collaborate, on an international basis, on RCTs and studies would be good.

I totally agree with Vivienne that tool kit is just great. Conducting a research should not allow any compulsion or the affirmation and divert one from getting to know the real facts. I will go further saying that evidence based decision making, although an important process can be very difficult in the context of the developing world where there is a lack of skills in conducting and analysing research and these are crucial to the future of EBLIP. Thanks to Paul Herbert for mentioning the "needs to be a culture where this is encouraged in the workplace with training provided in skills such as research and appraisal".
We in the developing world call for an international coalition to "forge a broader international coalition--bringing disparate nations together in a common determination for EBLIP". I thing this course should be echoed. I hope health information stakeholders and decision-makers read are aware of it, as it is the best plea I have seen since.
I am also happy some referred to EBM filters as they are very useful particularly when studies most of the time are specific to regions, ethnic groups, countries and environment.

My priorities would be practice guidelines, and anything else which summarises the evidence for librarians. As Heather says, realistically, we don't all have the time, skills, resources etc. to search, read and evaluate all the evidence available. I'm also not sure how realistic more RCTs are - in terms of time, funding, and the nature of our services.

Another priority of mine would be to assess/survey which questions are important to librarians, so can prioritise summarising and gaps in existing research. the 'burning question' discussion was an example of how much we have in common, but also the variety from a relatively small sample.

I would like the summaries to be available as part of a 'one-stop-shop' (like Anne I'm not keen on that phrase, but couldn't think of an alternative!) - is this a role for NLH??

As well as summaries, this would include a register of research - both published and ongoing (as suggested by Irina), and also links to checklists and training materials.

There should be the potential for setting up alerts from this - as Natalie pointed out - personally, I know I only go looking for research when I have a specific project in mind (and even then I probably don't get much further than HILJ!), but we should all try to keep up with research - and practice what we preach to health professionals!

As most respondents have commented, we also need to increase our (and managers') awareness of EBLIP and of the resources which are already available, as well as co-ordinating what we currently have - including internationally.

I agree with the proposed list of priorieties. I think that skills in conducting research are one of the most important . Register of rigorous studies and register of ongoing studies would be very useful too.
As a person from the other country I also want to point out the role of the international cooperation. EBLIP is not popular in Poland and the FOLIO course was for me the only chance to find out more about it. I haven’t known about the EBLIP journal before and I think it is a great resource.
I think Vivienne has a very good idea about EBM filters for EBLIP, it would be very helpful and save lot of time.
I also agree with Heather that summaries of available evidence would be a great help for those who are very busy. It would be also very useful for people who do not have acces to the full text.
I totally agree with Paul, Heather and Ibrahima that EBLIP should be promoted to empolyers and managers as not many of them know how useful it is.

Suzanne Lewis (Group 13). Thanks to Vivienne for highlighting the toolkit and others for commenting on it. I am going to boast a bit here and say that it is an initiative which has come out of my library - a joint effort by a number of staff. It was directly prompted by calls for a "one-stop shop". (by the way, there is an easier URL to get to it: http://eblip.net.au). The other comments that people have made are also really helpful for future development of the toolkit. Natalie mentioned RSS feeds and autoalerts: there are a few RSS feeds available from the toolkit including ones to the EBLIP journal evidence summaries by domain and one to recent articles of interest. There is also a blog (Libraries Using Evidence) associated with the toolkit, although this feature has not received much use so far. Natalie has commented that the toolkit should be extended to include a register of rigorous studies. This is a good suggestion, but may be more appropriately be in the form of a wiki where anyone could add material and it is not dependent on a small group of people to keep it up to date. Sarah and others have also mentioned practice guidelines and I think this is a high priority area for future development. My concern is whether there is enough of a research base from which to develop such guidelines. Also, if guidelines are to be developed, it would be ideal for them to take a standard format, ie. lots of librarians working on guidelines but the end products standardised in terms of presentation of the information and also accessibility.

Lisa Anderson - comments part 1

I do agree with the list of future priorities, though I am not sure how RCTs would work in practice. (I am now going to make it my mission to identify some RCTs in EBLIP, to try to understand how this research has been conducted in ‘our’ world). Some sort of collaboration for systematic reviews would be fantastic, in terms of what works and what doesn’t. I think collaboration is the way forward in terms of how we are all time poor, as Natalie says, ‘evidence based decision making, although an important process can be a very time consuming one’. Working in more collaborate way towards a shared goal; with colleagues interested in the same topic could be a most beneficial process, and would hopefully result in a sound evidence base for others to possibly base decisions on. This I feel this links in very much like Irina’s idea of a register of studies (as seconded by Mary and Natalie), so we could tap / contribute into current work streams to avoid working in isolation. Protocols drawn up in a standardised way would greatly help us to identify what studies are ‘happening’ in our wider communities. This fits in well with the whole spirit of Do Once ad Share (DOAS) and in saving time. My vision is that in this process would be a development in culture of skills of conducting research, disseminating research, skills in interpreting research for Librarians and Information Professionals. I too will admit (like Paul) since handing my masters in, I haven’t really undertaken any further research, I would be concerned my skills are a little rusty! I would be looking for a safe environment in which I could resurrect(!) and polish them.

Lisa Anderson - comments part 2

I am also interested in horizon scanning. We are moving towards this practice in a more formal was as Library Service to support the corporate business plans of the Trust. However, as a librarian and now, especially after this course thinking more from EBLIP perspective, I too would like to have a ‘peep’ into the ‘crystal ball’ to see what the future holds for the profession and the service. This I feel would help us to align ourselves to changes in future service demands, and the mechanisms for this? Alerts and RSS from Anne’s "one-stop-shop"? Everything we need in one place sounds wonderful. I am sold on the whole idea!

Hi, I'm sorry for coming in late again, I had to get the site unblocked again before I could contribute! I think it would be great if we could have some guidelines to share between us all. This could be connected to the new KSF when it is published, to help us meet the standards expected in health libraries. I also think it would be useful if EBLIP was included more in librarianship courses. I only finished my MA a couple of years ago and we didn't do anything about EBLIP, although we did do a lot about research. Perhaps EBLIP could be integrated with the master's research module and dissertation to help make it part of every librarian/information professional's role

Ann Tanker (group 1) I agree that evidence based practice guidelines to share with each other and with our users are a priority. We would be working within a framework, to the same standard in a more consistent and coherent manner. Consequently, wherever a user chose to access library services in the country the standards would be the same. This would tie in with the new NSF for libraries, establishing quality for knowledge services.

Coming in so late on the discussion, I have to agree with what a lot of people have already suggested: toolkits, practice guidelines, and registers for existing and ongoing research. Skills for creating guidelines and conducting, and appraising research would therefore be the top priorities.

Well, I am really late - not been quite myself lately. I really love the idea about the tool kit suggested by Vivienne as I like so many others feel I do not have the skills for appraising research. This course has been a real eye-opener for me but I certainly would like some guidelines as Catherine has also asked. Perhaps we could all get together at a later date and nut some out. I feel that the UK librarians are way in front when it comes to EBLIP and we down here really needed to get our heads around this and soon. I will certainly be looking at doing more courses as they become available.

and later still...! I think the fundamental way to get EBLIP firmly in librarians' focus is to gather all the disparate research/toolkits together (ScHAAR has done a lot but as Vivienne points out, there are others working in this area too) and for it to become a much larger part of the MSc Information&Library Management library qualification courses.
In doing this, librarians will have the skills necessary to conduct evidence based research. Like Paul Herbert, I also haven't done much in the way of research since university but if this was made much more practical to the workplace then things may have been different. As it is, now that I know of the EBLIP open access journal, I will incorporate this into my professional reading and hope to apply it practically when involved in service development projects. At the moment, librarians in institutions I've worked in, teach how to 'find' the evidence but rarely teach the 'evaluation' of this evidence other than showing students how to be aware of dubious websites etc. In health though, librarians do a lot more work with critical evaluation. These skills should be more prevalent throughout the profession.

Hi. I totally agree with Sarah that practice guidelines are essential, as we don't all have the time/skills we'd like to have and as has been pointed out, we need to make sure we are a co-operative community in producing guidelines and the research evidence behind them. As Paul said, we certainly do need to foster a culture where EBLIP is actively encouraged in the workplace with training provided in skills such as research and appraisal, particularly, as Sarah says, because we need to practice what we preach. I’m liking the toolkits and filters ideas as well and have found being on the Evidence-Based Libraries Jiscmail list quite informative and beneficial. It’s certainly made me more aware of the journals and research going on. I also agree with Catherine that evidence based practice needs inclusion on our professional courses. I’m just starting my third year on a masters course and there has been talk of EBLIP and we have been encouraged, it’s not been a huge concern just yet – perhaps this will come to the fore as part of the research section I’m just about to begin.

I agree that a priority should be practice guidelines. I think an additional challenge is having the time to implement evidence based library and information practice and if we had practice guidelines to follow they would save us lots of time. I also agree with others that international collaboration is important so we can learn from each other. In the meantime before practice guidelines are published I think prioritising the development of the EBLIP journal is key as an important source of evidence based literature for library and information professionals. I agree with Paul Herbert regarding the fact that we need to encourage a culture of evidence based library and information practice where it is encouraged in the workplace with training provided. We need to encourage evidence based library and information practice in our teams and explain it to our managers so we have support for implementing it in our work and it becomes part of the everyday culture. We all support it for evidence based healthcare and we should emphasise it for our own practice.

Better late than never. I agree with the list of priorities that have been provided. I particularly like the idea of practice guidelines, and that the EBLIP journal is open access. I, like most everyone here, agree with Vivienne about having some EBLIP filters developed for searching the literature. That would have been very helpful when searching some of the library databases for articles for my burning question. Paul and Heather, you are absolutely correct about the need for educating our management teams about evidence based library practices, and that is our job to do so. Since taking this course and the first one that was offered internationally, I am careful to incorporate the literature into the day to day operations and strategic planning for our library services and to communicate the basis for those decisions to those to whom I report. It certainly carries more weight in an evidence-based environment. Having some established practice guidelines in place for our profession would be of great benefit for all of us. I believe that we have all benefited from the international collaboration that is evident in this course. Having checklists for evaluating the research is very helpful, and it is important to incorporate the evaluation piece into our teaching. I had the opportunity to do so in a group setting lately. We spent the morning on searching for the evidence, broke for lunch and came back to spend the afternoon on evaluating the literature. The feedback was very positive i.e. "everyone should be able to avail of these sessions." We will follow through and set up more sessions this spring. In conclusion, priorities I would like to see for EBLIP are: practice guidelines, open access to the published research, more international collaboration, and communication of librarian's evidence based practice to decision-makers.

Coming in so late, I guess most people have now had their say and, like everyone else, I agree that filters and practice guidelines would be of great benefit. Natalie and Lisa, among others, also talk of collaboration and this, I believe, is key. Many library units are small and have enormous pressures on resources so research is very difficult. However much we may acknowledge the need, a library staffed by one, part-time person simply doesn't have the resources to spend on what can be a time-consuming project. So I would also like to see the production of critically appraised topics, as mentioned by Booth and Brice in the chapter of their book we read in week 3. Ann Brice, in her interview, talked of a web-based space as a means of collating evidence and sharing resources and this is an obvious area for such appraisals to be deposited. Finally, I would like to see some affordable training in this subject for librarians. CILIP courses are so expensive and with budgets being cut and opportunities for attending courses becoming ever more scarce, we need to find ways of getting together for study days or workshops where we can get support, share ideas and improve our skills in the processes involved in evidence based library and information practice.

Jean Truebridge:

Like those above I like the ideas of checklists for EBLIP and also filters to enable uniform searching of different databases.

Probably there should be a succinct list of desiderata in checklists required for evidence based outputs.

I consider that the design of research should at the beginning compare like with like so that the later difficulties of interpretation are minimized
initially. This developing best practice is at the root of the requirement as different areas of research will require different criteria, to a considerable extent.

EBLIP journals and newsletters are a good way to spread information, but they need to be accurate, succinct and read.

EBLIB should be taught in library schools - I would expect that this is done nowadays. This management of our resources is of fundamental importance to our standing as a profession.

To me the most important is the development of best practice and the outcome research. Training and retraining are essential and is ongoing now professionally with continuing professional education in most professions to
maintain relevance.

We all are aware that there are various checklists which should be using when we are evaluating a service or procedure but we often think we don't have enough time to check them or find them, but now after doing this course i realise how they can help you solve the problems more accurately and quicker. The checklists for example ReLiant, helps bring structure to your appraisal, it stops you skim reading the article, it makes you look and think about what you are reading in relation to a set of guidance headings. As someone has commented EBLIP should be on the library school sylabus, it is a good habit to acquire. It would be useful to have a site where librarians could share resources and ideas they have had in relation to EBLIP, i am sure everyone is aware of the restrictions on time when trying to launch any new service or develop an existing idea. Through the course i came across a vey useful piece of evidence of how a university how tackled an aspect of student induction. I contacted the university and they have very kindly passed on their findings. This has helped me in a number of ways, it has helped affirm a feeling i had, given me ideas for improvement, given me the confidence to go ahead with an idea. I agree with Kim i have enjoyed the contact with international libraries and i have enjoyed sharing information with Barbara i wished there had been more opportunity to work together just to expand how things differ in other countries.

I can't really add anything that hasn't already been suggested, but as Kim points out, this course will be useful in making me think more carefully about utilising evidence when developing services. A previous posting also suggests that affordable training would be valuable and I would agree with this - having put together a list of development objectives, I now need to find available and affordable courses which I can travel to easily.
A register of unpublished or ongoing research (in its broadest sense) in library services would be my top priority. There must be so much work going on that never gets published and it would be extremely helpful to be able to find others doing similar research that we could work with.

Vicki Veness, I agree with the list of priorities and as others have commented, skills in conducting and appraising research will be key if the priorities are to be taken further. Given the constant pressure on time and resources I particularly like the idea of readily accessible guidelines and toolkits. As Lisa Anderson and others have said, we need to DOAS (do once and share), there is no point re-inventing the wheel. By sharing ideas and coming togther through events and courses like FOLIO, we can learn from others in the profession and contribute to future EBL research.

Hi Lisa Lawrence again. I agree with Jason that a register of unpublished or ongoing research would be a great idea – do let me know if there is one already! Obviously some research is listed in various places, but perhaps this idea of a specific register could be tied in with the idea of a web-space for EBLIP, where as Anonymous says, evidence can be collated, resources shared and appraisals deposited. There is a great deal of good practice going on, but as we all seem to have commented it appears to be the sharing of this good practice which we need to improve on. Courses which are affordable and regular would be hugely beneficial, as has been already noted. This course is great not only because of it’s content and affordability, but also because of it’s accessibility. Perhaps more online/virtual courses would be beneficial? Could these be facilitated through this EBLIP space? Should CILIP in the UK be taking a lead role in this or actively supporting those with the expertise to do so? If we want to further our international collaboration, perhaps the professional associations from our various countries should co-operate over an EBLIP web-environment?

I haven't had much face-to-face experience with critical appraisals and toolkits so I'm not sure if my thoughts would be valuable or relevant! I have undertaken some literature searches in the past and what I have found is that there are more resources out there that than I can shake a stick at. I can just about understand the basic concepts of the studies and if they'd be relevant to a question, but that's as far as my knowledge goes! In terms of critical appraisal, I haven't had any formal training as such, so when I was asked to perform lit searches it took a while to get used to; I had to put myself back in the position of being at University and deciding whether Article A actually had any relevance to Question A, or whether I included it because I liked the wording! In response to Catherine (Apr 2), my undergrad course didn't go as far as EBLIP, apart from how to assess if a web resource was accurate or trustworthy, although I suppose that was just the nature of the course. It would be useful if more librarianship courses cover these kinds of issues, since more information is becoming available so we need to know how to critically appraise it and determine if it's what we're after.

Mariet Schepers. Hi; I realise that I come in very late to this discussion. I would like to thank people like Vivienne for highlighting toolkits and Suzanne to point out the Libraries Using Evidence blog. From the list of priorities for EBLIP I would prefer to see the development of practice guidelines and a register of rigorous studies first. Practice guidelines would help to get the EBLIP process on the way in my library. I agree with Nathalie Yates that working according to guidelines would give more confidence to start the whole process. A register with rigorous studies would be my second priority, as it would safe time when you need to find high quality evidence. I would also like to see activities to get managers more involved and be made aware of EBLIP. However, I am not sure how this could be achieved. More online / virtual courses (Lisa Lawrence) would definitely be helpful to make more library professionals (and managers) aware of EBLIP.

i find the idea of practice guidelines has a limited appeal.
Althought there may be overlap and wider appeal for some rather than others, the range of libraries we come from is so broad as to negate the value

I am a solo as well as my job i supervise clerical workers who run the hospitals switchboard. A guideline on selecting electronic databses whcih might be valuable for a large teaching hospital would be entirely irrelvant here. I buy what i can afford and believe me its not much.

It would be nice to have more freely avaialble content from conferences and journal articles such as the ones cited above. I wouldnt be able to attend such a conference - no money and no one to run the place when i'm away.

I agree with Jean - teach this in Library schools. but also teach them that they may end up doing clerical because there is no one else.

I think i need to take this all back one step and find a way to convinve hsopital administrators that some departments will never make money but do have a measurable output in terms of staff work enhancement It would be nice to have access to simple staff surveys and simple satisfaction surveys which have been validated in smaller places. Checklists there are a-plenty now Surely we dont need to do more with that aspect

I think we sell ourselves short. we have much of the ability to appraise now. We find things well WE crtique things well Now we need the time and money to implement our results.

Like most of you, I agree that, as professionals, we should be basing our practice on best available evidence. Yet how many of us, upon instigating a successful system, commit the results to a formal distribution channel for others to benefit from? I really like the idea of a shared best practice website such as Eureka for clinical governance (http://www.cgsupport.nhs.uk/Resources/Eurekas/default.asp), where librarians can submit examples of what has worked for them (the 'do once and share' system mentioned several times earlier). My main concern with that, though, is the 'Do once' bit. If it's only done once there’s no scope for subsequent [systematic] reviews. Just because it works well in one environment, doesn't mean it will work in others; even similar ones. Perhaps we should be advocating 'do lots and share' so we can see what works consistently.

Looking at the priorities list I see we are well behind the medical profession in terms of primary research and evidence of effectiveness. I share Suzanne Lewis' query as to whether the research base is great enough yet to consistently base our practice on such rigorous critical appraisal. Maybe I was unlucky in my choice of topic, or my search skills aren't up to scratch, but my experience of finding and critiquing a research paper for this course indicated both a dearth of formal, published evidence and a lack of quality. I don't know what others found, but my paper's poor performance on the validity scale suggests to me that most papers relating to libraries are likely to be subjective/biased because the research was carried out and analysed by the library staff. This makes any report no more useful or reliable than anecdotal feedback from discussions lists and 'do once and share' initiatives. Librarians, as a profession, don't seem to have the same level of funding available to support formal research as the medical sciences.

I do particularly like the idea of an EBP portal for librarians though.

I have to agree with Elyse, I think that practice guidelines have limited usefulness. Libraries vary widely in terms of their resources, staff, objectives, functions, what suits one is not necessarily going to suit another. For me the priorities would be educational courses like this one that bring EBLIP to more librarians, educating us to understand how to critically appraise research articles but more importantly educate us how to carry out more robust research. Like Richard i found that there was a lack of research articles on the topic I chose and those I did find were not of a high quality. As Richard and Suzanne say the research base is not there yet - of course this is only one way in which we can carry out EBLIP. We can also carry out primary research ourselves and this is the only way the evidence base will increase.

Sorry, I've come into this discussion extremely late and found all the comments very interesting. I think that practice guidelines can be useful but, as pointed out by others, libraries vary greatly and the guidelines might not necessarily be universally applicable.
I like Richard's suggestion of a shared best practice website and his plea for a more robust research base. I feel that there should be more investment in rigorous research across the library sector as a whole.
I also agree with Jason that affordable training would be really useful. I am fortunate in that I can easily travel to London but some courses are very expensive and we are all facing difficulties with budgets.

.....and finally! I just wanted to say my bit for what its worth. While agreeing with the list of priorities for EBLIP, I feel that all of them would not work in all contexts. Perhaps the list should be looked upon as a box of tools - each on its own or in combination with others, being suited for differing purposes and situations. Courses such as this Folio course is a good way of getting more people involved as active participants in the EBLIP process, further backed up with freely available on-line resources and cyber-cafe type forums where people can meet and discuss EBLIP issues with fellow professionals. As Elyse pointed out, there are many out there who are "chained to their desks", also those who operate in isolation. Being able to access and interact with other information professionals would help prevent more of us from becoming "very parochial and in-ward looking" - as Anne Brice put it. This in turn would help towards addressing what she refers to as a lack of popular discussion which could only strenghten EBLIP.

And probably the very last… The Folio course has given guidelines to us participants, but the more widely these can be disseminated and promoted, e.g. via NLH, the better the chances of developing EBLIP. A register of rigorous studies would be a great timesaver, as well as an inspiration to contribute: I was impressed with Jason’s idea for a register of unpublished/current research. The key priority for me seems to be achieving a raised awareness combined with training opportunities to develop our research skills. For instance an element of research could be covered in the National Service Framework, and/or introduced into the libraries’ accreditation scheme. Perhaps we could create a sort-of online journal club to compare notes and develop our appraisal skills. As Hannah and others commented, there seems to be little rigorous research already published in our field – I also had problems finding a suitable research-article on my topic. Meanwhile I intend to follow up my burning question and use this as a reason to practise the aspects we have covered in this course, to increase my skills in finding and assessing evidence, carrying out some research of my own, and hopefully implementing service improvements as a result.

I think the most important priorities for librarians is to develop research skills and best practice with regard to EBLIP. I,like Mary Smith said earlier often find articles which on a quick scan seem ok but once looked at more in depth prove to be enormously lacking in evidience or bias. EBLIP is brilliant and useful> I think doing courses such as these are great because although one's skills may get rusty as some have commented, I think an appraoch to research such as this once learnt is never forgotten. I for one would like to develop skills so that I can teach/cascade EBP to those I serve as a librarian. I also think a journal club is a great way of sharing and fine tuning this knowledge and hope to get one re-started in my area. But i know it takes a lot of time and organising for busy librarians. However, I think once we get to grips with EBLIP and make it part of our working lives the rest of the priorities list will flow.

It has been interesting reading all your comments and I hope to take what I can from them and add it to my still quite limited "formal" evidence based library and information practice. I think we all use an EB approach in some way or other even if it is only reading a few lines that incorporate a good idea that we can seize upon and develop into something that improves our service. To be able to access all those already developed good ideas in the form of guidelines/research outcomes etc would be a tremendous step forward.