Marte Ødegaard

• Ødegaard, Marte; Akerholt, Line Nybakk & Gadmar, Tone Charlotte (2026). O Conference Web Site, where art thou? Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education (NORIL). 15(1), p. 14–24. doi: 10.15845/noril.v15i1.4757. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Academic conferences are key arenas for sharing developments in library- and information science. As academic library staff, we promote open, transparent, and accessible research – but how well is our own professional output from conferences documented and retrievable? This study examines the availability of materials – such as presentations, posters, and programs – from Norwegian library and information science conferences. We used a three-step approach: targeted web searches for websites, outreach to conference owners asking for guidelines on archiving material, and analysis of entries in the Norwegian research database Cristin/ NVA. Our findings reveal a low level of retrievability. Many conference websites and materials are no longer accessible, and few organizations have clear guidelines for archiving or sharing content. We also suspect there appears to be limited culture or practice around registering conference contributions in Cristin/NVA. In our article, we also present recommendations for preserving and making conference materials accessible, and invite a broader discussion on how we, as a profession, can ensure that library science knowledge shared at conferences is not lost but remains part of the scholarly record.

• Pauwels, Nele S.; Ødegaard, Marte & Koobasi, Muguet (2025). What do journals’ author instructions state on search methods for systematic reviews: from evidence to implementation. Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries (JEAHIL). ISSN 1841-0715. doi: 10.32384/jeahil21671. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Systematic reviews are essential in clinical decision-making, policy development, and evidence-based practice.Our previous research identified significant gaps in author instructions of biomedical and health journals regardingsearch methods for systematic reviews. To address this, we engaged with key stakeholders to disseminate our researchfindings and provide recommendations to implement and improve the quality of journals’ author instructions,ultimately contributing to enhancing the quality of published systematic reviews. This brief note outlines the strategyand outcomes of this implementation project. Despite our efforts, limited adoption of our recommendations appearsto be primarily due to misconceptions about relevance to different journal scopes, competing editorial priorities,resource constraints related to time and expertise needed for implementation, and a lack of clear responsibility oraccountability. Further outreach is needed to raise awareness and improve the quality of journals’ author instructions.

• Pauwels, Nele S.; Koobasi, Muguet; Fry, Andra; Vandendriessche, Thomas; Wittevrongel, Annie & Ødegaard, Marte (2024). Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12050. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Introduction Systematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision-making, policy formulation, and evidence-based practice. However, despite the existence of well-established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for medical decision-making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews. Methods A sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form. Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d). Results One-third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines, protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist. Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews. Conclusion Journals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore, there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommendations drawn from the study's observations, aiming to help editorial teams enhance author instructions and, consequently, potentially assisting systematic reviewers in improving the quality of their reviews.

• Løvsletten, Per Olav; Wang, Xiaoqin; Pitre, Tyler; Ødegaard, Marte; Veroniki, Areti Angeliki & Lunny, Carole [Show all 9 contributors for this article] (2024). A systematic survey of 200 systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (published 2020–2021) reveals that few reviews report structured evidence summaries. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ISSN 0895-4356. 173. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111445. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Objectives - To map whether and how systematic reviews (SRs) with network meta-analysis (NMA) use presentation formats to report (a) structured evidence summaries – here defined as reporting of effects estimates in absolute effects with certainty ratings and with a method to rate interventions across one or more outcome(s) – and (b) NMA results in general.<p> <p>Study Design and Setting - We conducted a systematic survey, searching MEDLINE (Ovid) for SRs with NMA published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. We planned to include a random sample of publications, with predefined mechanisms in place for saturation, and included SRs that met prespecified quality criteria and extracted data on presentation formats that reported: (a) estimates of effects, (b) certainty of the evidence, or (c) rating of interventions.<p> <p>Results - The 200 eligible SRs, from 158 unique Journals, utilized 1133 presentation formats. We found structured evidence summaries in 10 publications (5.0%), with 3 (1.5%) reporting structured evidence summaries across all outcomes, including benefits and harms. Sixteen of the 133 SRs (11.7%) reporting dichotomous outcomes included estimates of absolute effects. Seventy-six SRs (38.0%) reported both benefits and harms and 26 SRs (13.0%) reported certainty ratings in presentation formats, 20 (76.9%) used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and 6 (23.1%) used Confidence In Network Meta-analysis. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve was the most common method to rate interventions (69 SRs, 34.5%). NMA results were most often reported using forest plots (108 SRs, 54.0%) and league tables (93 SRs, 46.5%).<p> <p>Conclusion - Most SRs with NMA do not report structured evidence summaries and only rarely do such summaries include reporting of both benefits and harms; those that do offer effective user-friendly communication and provide models for optimal NMA presentation practice.

• Aminoff, Sofie Ragnhild; Onyeka, Ifeoma Nkeiruka; Ødegaard, Marte; Simonsen, Carmen Elisabeth; Lagerberg, Trine Vik & Andreassen, Ole [Show all 8 contributors for this article] (2022). Lifetime and point prevalence of psychotic symptoms in adults with bipolar disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine. ISSN 0033-2917. 52(13), p. 2413–2425. doi: 10.1017/S003329172200201X. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Abstract Psychotic symptoms, that we defined as delusions or hallucinations, are common in bipolar disorders (BD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesise the literature on both lifetime and point prevalence rates of psychotic symptoms across different BD subtypes, including both BD type I (BDI) and BD type II (BDII). We performed a systematic search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library until 5 August 2021. Fifty-four studies ( N = 23 461) of adults with BD met the predefined inclusion criteria for evaluating lifetime prevalence, and 24 studies ( N = 6480) for evaluating point prevalence. Quality assessment and assessment of publication bias were performed. Prevalence rates were calculated using random effects meta-analysis, here expressed as percentages with a 95% confidence interval (CI). In studies of at least moderate quality, the pooled lifetime prevalence of psychotic symptoms in BDI was 63% (95% CI 57.5–68) and 22% (95% CI 14–33) in BDII. For BDI inpatients, the pooled lifetime prevalence was 71% (95% CI 61–79). There were no studies of community samples or inpatient BDII. The pooled point prevalence of psychotic symptoms in BDI was 54% (95 CI 41–67). The point prevalence was 57% (95% CI 47–66) in manic episodes and 13% (95% CI 7–23.5) in depressive episodes. There were not enough studies in BDII, BDI depression, mixed episodes and outpatient BDI. The pooled prevalence of psychotic symptoms in BDI may be higher than previously reported. More studies are needed for depressive and mixed episodes and community samples. Prospero registration number: CRD 42017052706.

• Varsi, Cecilie; Nes, Lise Solberg; Kristjansdottir, Olöf Birna; Kelders, Saskia M.; Stenberg, Una & Zangi, Heidi Andersen [Show all 13 contributors for this article] (2019). Implementation strategies to enhance the implementation of ehealth programs for patients with chronic illnesses: Realist systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR). ISSN 1439-4456. 21(9). doi: 10.2196/14255. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background: There is growing evidence of the positive effects of electronic health (eHealth) interventions for patients with chronic illness, but implementation of such interventions into practice is challenging. Implementation strategies that potentially impact implementation outcomes and implementation success have been identified. Which strategies are actually used in the implementation of eHealth interventions for patients with chronic illness and which ones are the most effective is unclear. Objective: This systematic realist review aimed to summarize evidence from empirical studies regarding (1) which implementation strategies are used when implementing eHealth interventions for patients with chronic illnesses living at home, (2) implementation outcomes, and (3) the relationship between implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and degree of implementation success. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they described implementation strategies used to support the integration of eHealth interventions into practice. Implementation strategies were categorized according to 9 categories defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project: (1) engage consumers, (2) use evaluative and iterative strategies, (3) change infrastructure, (4) adapt and tailor to the context, (5) develop stakeholder interrelationships, (6) use financial strategies, (7) support clinicians, (8) provide interactive assistance, and (9) train and educate stakeholders. Implementation outcomes were extracted according to the implementation outcome framework by Proctor and colleagues: (1) acceptability, (2) adoption, (3) appropriateness, (4) cost, (5) feasibility, (6) fidelity, (7) penetration, and (8) sustainability. Implementation success was extracted according to the study authors’ own evaluation of implementation success in relation to the used implementation strategies. Results: The implementation strategies management support and engagement, internal and external facilitation, training, and audit and feedback were directly related to implementation success in several studies. No clear relationship was found between the number of implementation strategies used and implementation success. Conclusions: This is the first review examining implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and implementation success of studies reporting the implementation of eHealth programs for patients with chronic illnesses living at home. The review indicates that internal and external facilitation, audit and feedback, management support, and training of clinicians are of importance for eHealth implementation. The review also points to the lack of eHealth studies that report implementation strategies in a comprehensive way and highlights the need to design robust studies focusing on implementation strategies in the future.

View all works in NVA

• Longva, Johanne & Ødegaard, Marte (2025). Systematiske kunnskapsoppsummeringer og litteraturstudier - hvordan undervise studenter. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Systematiske kunnskapsoppsummeringer og litteraturstudier - hvordan undervise studenter.

• Ødegaard, Marte; Akerholt, Line Nybakk & Gadmar, Tone Charlotte (2025). Konferansenettside, hvor ble det av deg i alt mylderet? En undersøkelse om gjenfinning av innholdet på fagbibliotekkonferanser. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Gjenfinning er faget vårt, men finner vi igjen vårt eget fag? Konferansebidrag i form av presentasjoner, workshops, postere og andre bidrag er viktig med tanke på å se utvikling og trender i et fag. Som ansatte i fagbibliotek er vi formidlere av viktigheten av dokumentert, transparent, åpen og gjenfinnbar forskning. Men hvordan står det til med dokumentasjonen av bibliotekfaglig utvikling? Vi undersøker om det er mulig å finne igjen nettsider, program og materiale fra et utvalg fagbibliotekkonferanser. Vi kartlegger dette ved å gjøre målrettede forsøk på nettadresser, bruk av søkemotorer, Wayback Machine og oppslag via organisasjoners nettsider. I tillegg kontakter vi eiere og ansvarlige for konferansene for å spørre hvordan de ser på arkivering og gjenfinning av konferansematerialet. Vi vil også presentere et forslag til anbefalinger for å ivareta nettsider og materiale fra konferanser og faglige møter, og innlede til en samtale om hvordan vi sammen kan forme den bibliotekfaglige fremtiden.

• Ødegaard, Marte & Jensen, Magnus Rom (2025). Bibliotekaren som medforfatter i vitenskapelig publisering. Full text in Research Archive
• Pauwels, Nele S.; Koobasi, Muguet; Fry, Andra; Vandendriessche, Thomas; Wittevrongel, Annie & Ødegaard, Marte (2024). What do journals' author instructions state on search methods for systematic reviews: from evidence to implementation. Abstracts accepted for the 2nd Global Evidence Summit, Prague, Czech Republic. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD202401. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background: While methodological standards, reporting guidelines, and quality assessment checklists for systematic reviews exist, the persistent publication of systematic reviews with low quality searches raises concerns. Given the critical role of systematic reviews in shaping clinical practice and policies, ensuring their quality is essential. In our prior study, currently under revision by Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, we evaluated and recommended improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health sciences journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews. Our prior research demonstrated that one third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines, protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist. Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldomly acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews. Objectives: Our implementation project aims to disseminate our research findings, implement the derived recommendations, ultimately contributing to enhancing the quality of published systematic reviews. Methods: By actively involving key stakeholders (including editors, editorial organisations, peer reviewers, authors, and information specialists), we will strategically disseminate our research findings. Simultaneously, we will formulate specific milestones and objectives, develop a comprehensive implementation plan, and assess the impact of our recommendations. Results: In our prior study we made recommendations for journals drawn from the study's observations, aiming to help editorial teams enhance author instructions and, consequently, potentially assisting systematic reviewers in improving the quality of their reviews. At the Global Evidence Summit 2024, we aim to present our results, recommendations and implementation strategy. Conclusion: Journals that make substantial contributions to synthesising evidence in biomedicine and health sciences are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting for reliable systematic reviews. By setting up a multifaceted implementation approach, we aim to inclusively engage with relevant parties, foster effective communication and implementation of relevant improvements.

• Bjerkenes, Glenn Karlsen; Longva, Johanne & Ødegaard, Marte (2024). ASReview and Covidence. Screening tools for literature reviews. Workshop. Full text in Research Archive
• Systad, Silje; Sørensen, Christiane; Ødegaard, Marte & Meulen, Ineke van der (2024). What influences language outcome in people with Landau Kleffner syndrome (LKS)? PROSPERO International prospectie register of systematic reviews. Full text in Research Archive
• Pauwels, Nele S.; Koobasi, Muguet; Fry, Andra; Vandendriessche, Thomas; Wittevrongel, Annie & Ødegaard, Marte (2024). What do journals' author instructions state on search methods for systematic reviews: from evidence to implementation. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background: While methodological standards, reporting guidelines, and quality assessment checklists for systematic reviews exist, the persistent publication of systematic reviews with low quality searches raises concerns. Given the critical role of systematic reviews in shaping clinical practice and policies, ensuring their quality is essential. In our prior study, currently under revision by Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, we evaluated and recommended improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health sciences journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews. Our prior research demonstrated that one third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines, protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist. Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldomly acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews. Objectives: Our implementation project aims to disseminate our research findings, implement the derived recommendations, ultimately contributing to enhancing the quality of published systematic reviews. Methods: By actively involving key stakeholders (including editors, editorial organisations, peer reviewers, authors, and information specialists), we will strategically disseminate our research findings. Simultaneously, we will formulate specific milestones and objectives, develop a comprehensive implementation plan, and assess the impact of our recommendations. Results: In our prior study we made recommendations for journals drawn from the study's observations, aiming to help editorial teams enhance author instructions and, consequently, potentially assisting systematic reviewers in improving the quality of their reviews. At the Global Evidence Summit 2024, we aim to present our results, recommendations and implementation strategy. Conclusion: Journals that make substantial contributions to synthesising evidence in biomedicine and health sciences are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting for reliable systematic reviews. By setting up a multifaceted implementation approach, we aim to inclusively engage with relevant parties, foster effective communication and implementation of relevant improvements.

• Ødegaard, Marte; Koobasi, Muguet; Fry, Andra; Vandendriessche, Thomas; Wittevrongel, Annie & Pauwels, Nele (2023). What do journals' author guidelines state on search methods for systematic reviews? Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Abstract Introduction: The literature search methods to retrieve all available evidence are a crucial component of a systematic review. As a result of a poorly executed search, the systematic review might be biased, lack information, and misinform its users. Although there are methodological standards for conducting systematic reviews, reporting guidelines for writing systematic reviews and checklists for assessing their quality, systematic reviews with low quality searches are still being published. The low quality relates to both the execution and reporting of the search (Franco et al., 2018; Koffel & Rethlefsen, 2016, among others). The consequences could be significant, as systematic reviews are an important type of evidence that informs clinical practice and policies. The aim of this study is to map to what degree the author guidelines of medical and health journals provide guidance and ensure quality in terms of conducting, reporting and peer reviewing systematic review searches, including at protocol registration stage. Methods: To select a sample of relevant journals, MEDLINE (PubMed interface) was searched late August 2022 for systematic reviews. The search was limited to systematic reviews published from 2020 to 2021. The systematic reviews were exported from MEDLINE and subdivided by year. Journals publishing yearly more than 50 systematic reviews were identified using EndNote 20. Additionally, total mentions in Altmetric Explorer, the Altmetric attention score and the citation impact (InCites) were included to further delineate the sample. An online data extraction form was developed and piloted to standardise extracting data from the author guidelines. Information concerning reporting of searches, including the encouragement of using reporting guidelines, and any other instructions for reporting searches or other information related to retrieval methods were extracted. Data was extracted independently by at least 2 reviewers to ensure quality and discrepancies were resolved by a senior reviewer. The results will be presented by descriptive statistics. The study is an EAHIL-SIG-EBI initiated project and the protocol is published on OSF. Results: The author guidelines from 169 unique journals were exported late September 2022 for data extraction. The data extraction and analysis are currently ongoing, but preliminary analyses tend to show a lack of specific information in the author guidelines for systematic reviews. The journals will also be checked for suspicion of being predatory based on several criteria like publisher and impact factor. At EAHIL 2023, we aim to present the findings of this study. Discussion: There are several aspects that determine the poor quality of published systematic reviews, such as the lack of sufficient methodological knowledge of the project collaborators and/or peer reviewers. Awareness should thus be raised on this topic. We suspect that due to the lack of information on the journals' websites, there is a missed opportunity to signpost authors to reliable systematic review conducting and reporting standards. Moreover, there seems to be little or no indication that journals also check international standards at peer reviewing stage and this seems to be left at the peer reviewers' discretion. The authors of this study, therefore, recommend the involvement of an information specialist at the peer reviewing stage of systematic reviews.

• Løvsletten, Per Olav; Wang, Xiaoqin; Pitre, Tyler; Ødegaard, Marte; Veroniki, Areti Angeliki & Lunny, Carole [Show all 9 contributors for this article] (2023). Reporting of network meta-analysis results in systematic reviews: a cross- sectional sample of evidence summary presentation formats. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) with network meta-analysis (NMA) are essential in informing treatment decisions in health policy and practice. However, it is challenging to communicate evidence summaries visually in comprehensible presentation formats. Objective: To map and describe current reporting practices of NMA evidence summaries in SRs, with a specific focus on presentation formats´ reporting of estimates of effect, certainty of the evidence and ranking/categorization. Methods: We searched in MEDLINE for SRs with NMA published 01.01.2020 – 31.12.2021. Presentation formats were labelled and categorized according to whether they reported: 1) effect estimates, 2) certainty of the evidence and/or 3) ranking/categorization of interventions. Results: 200 SRs with 1133 presentation formats from 158 different journals were included. Internal medicine (46 SRs, 23.0%) were the most frequent topic and Forest plots (429, 37.9%) and league tables (188, 16.6%) were the most frequent presentation formats. 76 SRs (38.0%) reported both benefits and harms in presentation formats, 26 SRs (13.0%) reported GRADE or CINeMA certainty ratings and 144 SRs (72.0%) reported ranking/categorization. Focusing on evidence summaries reporting absolute effects across benefits and harms, with GRADE or CINeMA certainty ratings and ranking/categorization of interventions, 3 SRs (1.5%) reported this in presentation formats. Of these, 2 SRs (1.0%) reported such evidence summaries for multiple outcomes within the same (single) presentation format. Discussion: This study demonstrates current challenges and shortcomings in reporting of evidence summaries in presentation formats. Only a small fraction of SRs reported absolute effects across benefits and harms, with certainty ratings and ranking/categorization in tables/figures.

• Løken, Fredrik; Omole, Adesua; Hem, Hilde Kristin; Ødegaard, Marte; Rosenkilde, Oda Amalie & Gullbekk, Eystein (2023). For førsteårsstudentene! Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Høsten 2024 vil Universitetsbiblioteket (UB) lansere sin nye satsing for førsteårsstudentene. Her skal ferdigheter, mestring og akademisk tilhørighet settes i sentrum. UBs utgangspunkt er våre eksisterende tjenester innen informasjonskompetanse, akademisk skriving og bibliotekets faglig-sosiale møteplasser. I workshopen får du vite mer om UBs tilbud til studentene og studieprogrammene, og om vårt arbeid for å forberede en ny satsing for førsteårsstudentene. I workshopen inviteres du også inn i selve forberedelsene for satsningen. I forberedelsesfasen involverer vi både studenter og miljøer ved UiO i en utforsking av hva førsteårsstudenter opplever som utfordrende og motiverende, og hva vi sammen kan skape for studentene. Alle er velkomne til å delta for å komme med sine tanker og ideer om hva det er en førsteårsstudent trenger for å finne seg til rette med å studere på UiO. Eksempler på spørsmål vi søker svar på er: Hva er det vi må tenke på når vi skal lage et bredt tilbud til førsteårsstudenter? Til studenter: Hva er det du vet nå, som du gjerne skulle visst da du var fersk student? Til ansatte / fagansvarlige: Hva mener du at en førsteårsstudent har behov for å vite (om biblioteket eller andre ting ved UiO)? Hvordan bør tilbudet kommuniseres?

• Ødegaard, Marte; Pauwels, Nele S.; Koobasi, Muguet; Fry, Andra; Vandendriessche, Thomas & Wittevrongel, Annie (2023). Mapping journals’ requirements for systematic review searches. Open Science Framework (OSF). doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6AX4P. Full text in Research Archive
• Ødegaard, Marte; Malovic, Ivana; Kalvik, Skjalg Tønnessen & Clarke, Sara (2022). The Library’s Project Thesis Clinic. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Introduction What do we do when library teaching does not fit into the academic schedule? In response to this challenge, we started a project to provide information literacy teaching “just in time”. A common challenge faced by academic libraries is reduced time granted to course- integrated teaching of information literacy. This raises the concern that students will not obtain the necessary information literacy skills required for their studies. In this presentation we describe how we met these challenges through the creation of freestanding courses covering central aspects of information literacy, tailored to medical students. The catalyst for this course was the project thesis (20 ECTS) that the students complete as part of their professional education. The project thesis requires that students complete an independent scientific work wherein they specialize in a chosen field or innovation project. The project thesis is completed over a two-year period where January in year one contains courses in evidence-based medicine (EBM) and how to do a research project, and year two includes two teaching-free periods dedicated to project thesis work. The long time lag between the course in EBM and the individual study-period makes it difficult for the students to apply what they have learned. This leads to periodically increased pressure on the library due to the large number of students requesting instruction during their periods of self-directed learning. Aim The aim of this project was to find a solution to the added pressure on library services during the project thesis period by creating a suite of freestanding courses tailored specifically to the needs of the students. We had the following questions in the development of the project: · At which time will the students find the courses most useful? · How do we ensure that students get timely information when the project thesis stretches over a two-year period, and when faculty leaves little room for practical training in information skills? · How do we ensure the teaching we provide is relevant and covers the necessary topics? Program Description We created a collection of freestanding courses named the Project thesis clinic. The Project Thesis Clinic (PTC) lasts for a month and includes courses on academic writing, literature searching, critical appraisal, citing scientific literature, and individual guidance. Evaluation High attendance and positive feedback from the first clinic in 2021 showed the PTC was successful, which prompted the library to plan it again for January 2022. We adjusted the program based on feedback from the students in 2021 and aim to collect feedback in January 2022 using evaluation forms after the clinic has taken place. Conclusion This project has allowed us to test new teaching approaches, as well as ensuring that students receive required information literacy training “just-in-time” for when it is required. The global pandemic and need for digital solutions have also affected how the project has been developed. Human Touch Medical students feel the library provides them with the tools needed for success in their project.

• Gullbekk, Eystein; Ødegaard, Marte; Clarke, Sara & Konestabo, Heidi Sjursen (2022). Ett klikk fra kunnskap? Hvordan ta førsteårsstudentenes møte med forskning og faglige informasjonskilder på alvor. Full text in Research Archive
• Ødegaard, Marte; Malovic, Ivana; Kalvik, Skjalg Tønnessen & Clarke, Sara (2022). Bibliotekets prosjektoppgave-klinikk ved UiO: Akutt intensivundervisning for medisinstudenter. Full text in Research Archive
• Ødegaard, Marte (2021). Emneord og tekstord. Når brukes hva? Hvordan fungerer en tesaurus? Full text in Research Archive
• Gundersen, Malene Wøhlk; Opheim, Elin & Ødegaard, Marte (2021). BISON – et sted å høre til. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  BISON – et sted å høre til For bibliotekarer som på varierende vis er involvert i systematiske oversikter er BISON stedet å være med over 130 medlemmer på tvers av fag, geografi, institusjoner og erfaring. Og bedre skal det bli! Gjennom deltakelse i vår interaktive BISON-bingo bidrar du i vårt felles, faglige nettverk og kan påvirke hvilke kurs og seminarer som arrangeres, utveksle erfaringer og få med deg gullkorn fra «The Best of BISON».

• Løvsletten, Per Olav; Veroniki, Areti Angeliki; Lunny, Carole; Vandvik, Per Olav; Agoritsas, Thomas & Tricco, Andrea C. [Show all 7 contributors for this article] (2021). Evidence summaries in systematic reviews with network meta-analysis: protocol of a systematic survey of existing approaches and presentation formats. Open Science Framework (OSF). doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Y3JER. Full text in Research Archive
• Ødegaard, Marte (2020). Introduksjon av BISON: Bibliotekarer involvert i systematiske oversikter i Norge. Full text in Research Archive
• Varsi, Cecilie; Nes, Lise Solberg; Kristjansdottir, Olöf Birna; Stenberg, Una; Zangi, Heidi Andersen & Kelders, Saskia M [Show all 14 contributors for this article] (2019). Implementeringsstrategier benyttet ved implementering av e-helseløsninger for pasienter med kronisk sykdom. Full text in Research Archive
• Varsi, Cecilie; Nes, Lise Solberg; Kristjansdottir, Olöf Birna; Stenberg, Una; Zangi, Heidi Andersen & Kelders, Saskia M [Show all 14 contributors for this article] (2019). Implementering av e-helseløsninger for pasienter med kronisk sykdom - Review av implementeringsstrategier. Full text in Research Archive
• Varsi, Cecilie; Nes, Lise Solberg; Weiss, Karen; Kelders, Saskia M; Kristjansdottir, Olöf Birna & Zangi, Heidi Andersen [Show all 13 contributors for this article] (2018). Implementation Strategies used in the implementation of ehealth interventions. Full text in Research Archive
• Varsi, Cecilie; Nes, Lise Solberg; Kristjansdottir, Olöf Birna; Stenberg, Una; Zangi, Heidi Andersen & Kelders, Saskia M [Show all 14 contributors for this article] (2018). Implementation Strategies used for the Implementation of e-health Interventions for patients with chronic illness – a systematic literature review. Full text in Research Archive
• Ødegaard, Marte & Aamodt, Mikaela (2018). Systematiske oversikter - nye utfordringer og nye muligheter for fagbiblioteket. Bob : Bok og bibliotek. ISSN 0006-5811. 85(2), p. 64–65. Full text in Research Archive
• Ødegaard, Marte & Skagen, Therese (2017). Reference interview for systematic review searches. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Title: Reference interview for systematic review searches Introduction: Librarians are often asked to contribute to systematic reviews with a systematic literature search. In order to make sure methodological requirements are followed and consensus on the work to be done we have created an interview guide for the reference interview for systematic review searches. The interview guide will also help unexperienced librarians gain methodological skills. Aim: The aim is to highlight the reference interview as an important tool preparing for systematic review searching. Method: The interview guide is based on previously published literature on reference interviews, methodology literature for systematic reviews and own experiences. Results: The interview guide contain questions tailored to confirm that a systematic review is being made and to highlight topics related to methodology of the literature search. The aim is that the reference interview should be a simple and convenient tool to prepare for systematic review searches. Conclusion: This poster demonstrates elements to include in a reference interview tailored for systematic review searching. The interview guide is easy to use in communication with researchers and useful in in-house training. Keywords: systematic review, reference interview, librarian’s role, research, check list

• Ødegaard, Marte; Søyland, Marte Jørgensdatter; Skagen, Therese & Yilmaz, Muharrem (2016). UX på Medisinsk Bibliotek. Full text in Research Archive
• Ødegaard, Marte & Skagen, Therese (2016). Intervjuguide for litteratursøk til systematiske oversikter. Full text in Research Archive
• Austrheim, Gunhild Helene; Bech, Mia; Cutler, Ingrid; Gasparini, Andrea; Haraldsen, Kirsten Borse & Kavli, Fredrik Andersen [Show all 16 contributors for this article] (2015). PhD on Track – online library support for PhD students. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  PhD on Track – online library support for PhD students Austrheim, Gunhild5; Bech, Mia 3; Cutler, Ingrid 2; Gasparini, Andrea Alessandro1; Haraldsen, Kirsten Borse 1; Kavli, Fredrik 4; Konestabo, Heidi Sjursen1; Lundmark, Anders Mattias1; Mikki, Susanne 2; Roos, Monica 5; Rullestad, Tove 2; Skagen, Therese1; Torras, Maria-Carme 5; Westbye, Hilde 1; Ødegaard, Marte 1; Gullbekk, Eystein1 Presenter: Kirsten Borse Haraldsen: k.b.haraldsen@ub.uio.no 1Oslo University Library, 2Bergen University Library, 3Aalborg University Library, 4Norwegian School of Economics, Library, 5Bergen University College, Library, In order to become skilled researchers within their specific field, PhD students must master a number of so-called generic or professional skills. These include to publish scientific results, efficiently navigate different sources of information and literature, and to understand how measurements of scientific impact may affect funding and career opportunities. The students may also encounter ethical dilemmas, such as handling different co-author practices, disagreements on publication channels, and open access publishing. In a collaborative effort five Scandinavian research and university libraries have developed the free online resource PhD on Track, to help address these skills and knowledge needs of PhD students. The resource is primarily aimed at inexperienced PhD students, but may also prove valuable to more experienced researchers. In our poster we present the different elements of PhD on Track, highlight some of its potential uses and point to discussions of libraries as legitimate actors in PhD students’ research and learning. We value input from the research communities in an effort to include more specific resources and topics targeted at the biochemical and biological researchers, e.g. about research data repositories, and funding in cross-disciplinary framework programs. The www.phdontrack.net site was launched in 2013 and is already used as a resource in 7 countries. It is built on the results of an empirical study of PhD candidates practices and experienced challenges (Gullbekk et al 2012), conceived as part of the collaborative project “Information Management for Knowledge Creation” funded by the Norwegian National Library. Reference: Gullbekk, E., Rullestad, T., & Torras i Calvo, M.-C. (ed.) (2012). PhD candidates and the research process: The library's contribution. (Vol. 8). Oslo: Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo.

• Ødegaard, Marte (2014). A study of knowledge management among last year medical students: implications for the library. Full text in Research Archive
• Gullbekk, Eystein; Lundmark, Anders Mattias; Attinger, Gisela; Bech, Mia; Cutler, Ingrid & Folkestad, Hege [Show all 18 contributors for this article] (2014). Helping PhD-students succeed: PhD on Track. Full text in Research Archive
• Good, Matthew; Gadmar, Tone Charlotte; Ødegaard, Marte; Malovic, Ivana & Haraldsen, Kirsten Borse (2025). Notat – Resultatene fra brukerintervjuer for LVB. Universitetet i Oslo. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Mottaksprosjektet for Livsvitenskapsbygget ved UB skal bestemme hvordan UB skal lage en «plan for oppstart og drift av det nye biblioteket, samt tilby målrettet tjenester til fagmiljøene og studentene i bygget». Arbeidspakke for tjenesteutvikling skal utrede behovene til brukerne som skal flytte inn i bygget. Som et ledd i dette arbeid har arbeidspakke utført 13 intervjuer eller gruppeintervjuer med 17 personer med diverse bakgrunn.

• Gadmar, Tone Charlotte; Ødegaard, Marte; Malovic, Ivana; Haraldsen, Kirsten Borse & Good, Matthew (2025). Bibliometrisk analyse av publiseringskultur hos enheter som skal inn i Livsvitenskapsbygget basert på Cristin-data. Universitetet i Oslo. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Arbeidspakke for tjenesteutvikling under UBs Mottaksprosjektet for Livsvitenskapsbygget skal se på tjenester UB bør tilby i Livsvitenskapsbygget. I denne forbindelse er det behov for å få en oversikt over publiseringskulturen til forskningsmiljøene som skal inn i Livsvitenskapsbygget; publiserinskanaler, sampublisering etc. Som ledd i dette arbeidet er det gjennomført en bibliometrisk analyse av enhetenes samlede publisering for perioden 2021-2023 ved hjelp av data hentet fra Cristin. Denne analysen skal sammen med intervju-undersøkelsen (kvalitativ) og spørreskjema-undersøkelsen (kvantitativ) gi en forståelse av fagmiljøenes behov for forskningsstøtte, herunder behov for infrastruktur og støtte i forbindelse med publisering, samt søke å avdekke mulige utfordringer i dagens situasjon.

• Gadmar, Tone Charlotte; Ødegaard, Marte; Malovic, Ivana; Haraldsen, Kirsten Borse & Good, Matthew (2025). Oppsummering av funn fra spørreundersøkelse ved fagmiljøene som skal inn i Livsvitenskapsbygget. Universitetet i Oslo. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Arbeidspakke for tjenesteutvikling under UBs Mottaksprosjektet for Livsvitenskapsbygget skal se på tjenester UB bør tilby i Livsvitenskapsbygget. I denne forbindelse er det behov for å få en oversikt over de ansattes behov og ønsker for fag-, forsknings- og undervisningsstøttende tjenester fra og i samarbeid med Universitetsbiblioteket. Som ledd i dette arbeidet er det gjennomført en spørreundersøkelse ved hjelp av Nettskjema blant de ansatte ved de aktuelle enhetene. Denne analysen skal sammen med intervju-undersøkelsen (kvalitativ) og den bibliometriske undersøkelsen av publiseringsmønster (kvantitativ) gi en forståelse av fagmiljøenes behov, prioriteringer og ønsker.

• Ødegaard, Marte; Lund, Hans & Austrheim, Gunhild (2019). Journal requirements for reporting systematic review searching: a survey of author instructions. Høgskulen på Vestlandet. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Introduction: To use systematic reviews to inform clinical guidelines, the methodology needs to be conducted and reported in an open and reproducible manner. Studies show that reporting of literature searches is poor despite that there are reporting guidelines. This survey investigates which requirements on systematic review searching journals include in their author instructions. Methods: A cross sectional survey was conducted. The sample consist of 179 medical journals. The journals´ author instructions were reviewed and any information regarding requirements for reporting literature searches was collected and categorized. Results: Of the 179 journals, 54% included instructions on how to report systematic review searches; by the use of established reporting guidelines (48%), mostly PRISMA, or journal specific requirements (24%). 6% of the journals rely only on journal specific requirements. The most requested reporting items are 1) Search strategy should be reported (14%), 2) Databases/ information-/ data sources (12%) and 3) Describe search methods/ process (9%). Discussion: Reporting items in journal specific requirements are reflecting the content of established reporting guidelines. There are some additional reporting items not covered by the reporting guidelines. To a great extent, in journals recommending reporting guidelines, the journals specific requirements included are overlapping with the content of the recommended reporting guidelines. Journals only relying on journal specific requirements, have few and vague reporting items

View all works in NVA