• Knowledge Bank

    Collecting, preserving, and distributing the intellectual output of The Ohio State University

    Learn More

Recent Submissions

Council on Academic Affairs: Minutes (February 7, 2024)
(Ohio State University, 2024-02-07) Ohio State University. Council on Academic Affairs
Minutes from the Council on Academic Affairs' meeting on February 7, 2024.
Communicating Equity: Research Impact Services at ARL Libraries and Prevalence of DEIJ
(2023-03) Craft-Morgan, Sheila
Librarians are key to helping faculty communicate the impact of their research to funding organizations and university departments for promotion and tenure. Scholarly metrics also inform strategic planning, benchmarking, and program review. As such, librarians are in the best position to share research about the intersection of diversity, equity, inclusion and justice (DEIJ) and scholarly metrics with their audiences. Find out how prevalent research impact services librarians are at research institutions, to which unit they report, and whether the institutions’ scholarly metrics LibGuides include information about DEIJ issues.
Terms of Inclusion: Mapping the concepts used to describe bias in the research lifecycle
(2024-06) Craft-Morgan, Sheila
While conducting research about diversity, equity, inclusion and justice (DEIJ) and research impact, I have found that there is a great deal of literature in a variety of disciplines about citation bias and other types of bias in the research lifecycle. I define bias in the research lifecycle as bias based on gender, ethnicity, country of origin, institution, language, etc., that affects the participation or experience of that group, such as bias in peer review, citation bias and/or citational justice, bias in grant evaluation, or editorial board composition. Building off of my previous work which found that few ARL libraries include resources addressing this topic in their research impact resource guides, I am currently working on a project to build a toolkit to help other research impact librarians begin to incorporate this information into their resource guides. One part of the project is a literature review that will be used to develop a framework to describe bias in the research lifecycle, in general, and specifically, proposed methods of mitigation of the bias, including the actions that other disciplines suggest that libraries can take to address this issue. For this proposal, I will map the concepts and terminology used in the title and abstracts of articles discussing bias in the research lifecycle during a ten-year time span, 2013-2023. I will be using VosViewer and Tableau to create visualizations for this proposal. The resulting analysis will be used to shed light on the ways that other researchers are discussing this topic and contribute to the development of the framework for the toolkit.
Implementing an Evidenced-Based Quality Improvement Project to Standardize Foot Screening in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes
(The Ohio State University, 2024-05) Seiter, Allison; Teall, Alice
Introduction: In the United States, over 37 million adults have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with 23% of them unaware of their condition. Diabetes contributes to significant health complications, including over 270,000 deaths, 16 million emergency visits, and 7.8 million hospitalizations annually. Individuals with T2DM are prone to peripheral arterial disease and neuropathy; approximately 25% of people with diabetes will develop a foot ulcer during their lifetime, leading to significant medical expenses, lost productivity, and reduced quality of life. Regular screening and education can prevent up to 85% of diabetes-related amputations. Evidenced- based practice guidelines recommend integrating a process for standardized foot screening in primary care. Purpose: The purpose of this project was to standardize foot screening for patients with T2DM within a comprehensive primary care clinic. Methods: This quality improvement project standardized foot screening using the Inlow's 60-Second Diabetic Foot Screen, a validated, rapid screening tool created for primary care that includes use of the 10-g monofilament test and key risk stratification scoring. Utilizing the Plan-Study-Do-Act model, an educational in-service during the project kick-off provided an opportunity for clinicians and staff to practice using the Inlow’s Screen. The healthcare team involved in integrating the standardized screening in practice included four family medicine physicians, two nurse practitioners, one licensed practical nurse, nine medical assistants, the office manager, and several nonclinical office specialists. Results: Pre-implantation data was collected from primary care visits to evaluate the percent of patients with T2DM who received an annual foot exam within the four weeks prior to the project; the data revealed 49.8% of patients with T2DM (n=287) received a foot exam utilizing a monofilament tool. Following project implementation, 55% of adults with T2DM seen in the office (n=209) had a completed comprehensive foot exam. Based on scores from the Inlow's 60-Second Diabetic Foot Screen, three patient referrals were placed for specialist evaluation of their DFU risks. Implications for Practice: Implementation of an evidenced-based, standardized foot screening in primary care can result in an increase of completed foot exams for individuals with T2DM. Leadership buy-in and team collaboration is needed to create an environment that supports practice change.
Front Matter with Masthead (Volume 20, Number 2, 2024)
(Ohio State University. Moritz College of Law, 2024)