Pippa Evans
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Pippa Evans has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Abdullah Pandor
Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
1 shared publication - Alison Scope
Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
1 shared publication - Andrew Booth
ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
1 shared publication - Anthea Sutton
Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
1 shared publication L Wyld
1 shared publication- Rachid Rafia
Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 October 2013
- Published by National Institute for Health and Care Research in Health Technology Assessment
- Vol. 17 (44) , 1-+
Gene expression profiling and expanded immunohistochemistry tests to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer management: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
Health Technology Assessment Volume: 17, Issue: 44, Published in October 2013
- 1 October 2013
- Published by National Institute for Health and Care Research in Health Technology Assessment
- Vol. 17 (44) , 1-+
Open AccessGene expression profiling and expanded immunohistochemistry tests to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer management: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
Health Technology Assessment Volume: 17, Issue: 44, Published in October 2013
- Open Access
- 10 June 2013
- Published by University of Alberta Libraries in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
- Vol. 8 (2) , 200-213
“Ask, Acquire, Appraise”: A Study of LIS Practitioners Participating in an EBLIP Continuing Education Course
Objective – The project sought to examine the aspects of the question answering process in an evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) context by presenting the questions asked, articles selected, and checklists used by an opportunistic sample of Australian and New Zealand library and information professionals from multiple library and information sectors participating in the “Evidence Based Library and Information Practice: Delivering Services That Shine” (EBLIP-Gloss) FOLIOz e-learning course. Methods – The researchers analyzed the “ask,” “acquire,” and “appraise” tasks completed by twenty-nine library and information professionals working in Australia or New Zealand. Questions were categorized by EBLIP domain, articles were examined to identify any comparisons, and checklists were collated by frequency. Results – Questions fell within each of the six EBLIP domains, with management being the most common. Timeliness, relevance, and accessibility were stronger determinants of article selection than rigour or study design. Relevance, domain, and applicability were the key determinants in selecting a checklist. Conclusion – This small-scale study exemplifies the EBLIP process for a self-selecting group of library and information professionals working in Australia and New Zealand. It provides a snapshot of the types of questions that library and information practitioners ask, and the types of articles and checklists found to be useful. Participants demonstrated a preference for literature and checklists originating from within the library and information science (LIS) field, reinforcing the imperative for LIS professionals to contribute to EBLIP research.
- 10 June 2013
- Published by University of Alberta Libraries in Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
- Vol. 8 (2) , 200-213
Open Access“Ask, Acquire, Appraise”: A Study of LIS Practitioners Participating in an EBLIP Continuing Education Course
Objective – The project sought to examine the aspects of the question answering process in an evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) context by presenting the questions asked, articles selected, and checklists used by an opportunistic sample of Australian and New Zealand library and information professionals from multiple library and information sectors participating in the “Evidence Based Library and Information Practice: Delivering Services That Shine” (EBLIP-Gloss) FOLIOz e-learning course. Methods – The researchers analyzed the “ask,” “acquire,” and “appraise” tasks completed by twenty-nine library and information professionals working in Australia or New Zealand. Questions were categorized by EBLIP domain, articles were examined to identify any comparisons, and checklists were collated by frequency. Results – Questions fell within each of the six EBLIP domains, with management being the most common. Timeliness, relevance, and accessibility were stronger determinants of article selection than rigour or study design. Relevance, domain, and applicability were the key determinants in selecting a checklist. Conclusion – This small-scale study exemplifies the EBLIP process for a self-selecting group of library and information professionals working in Australia and New Zealand. It provides a snapshot of the types of questions that library and information practitioners ask, and the types of articles and checklists found to be useful. Participants demonstrated a preference for literature and checklists originating from within the library and information science (LIS) field, reinforcing the imperative for LIS professionals to contribute to EBLIP research.