This paper aims to explore users\' perceptions of whether the Leadership Development Impact Assessment (LDI) Toolkit is valid, reliable, simple to use and cost-effective as a guide to its quality improvement.
The Canadian Health Leadership Network codesigned and codeveloped the LDI Toolkit as a theory-driven and evidence-informed resource that aims to assist health-care organizational development practitioners to evaluate various programs at five levels of impact: reaction, learning, application, impact and return on investment (ROI) and intangible benefits. A comparative evaluative case study was conducted using online questionnaires and semistructured telephone interviews with three health organizations where robust leadership development programs were in place. A total of seven leadership consultants and specialists participated from three Canadian provinces. Data were analyzed sequentially in two stages involving descriptive statistical analysis augmented with a qualitative content analysis of key themes.
Users perceived the toolkit as cost-effective in terms of direct costs, indirect costs and intangibles; they found it easy-to-use in terms of clarity, logic and structure, ease of navigation with a coherent layout; and they assessed the sources of the evidence-informed tools and guides as appropriate. Users rated the toolkit highly on their perceptions of its validity and reliability. The analysis also informed the refinement of the toolkit.
The refined LDI Toolkit is a comprehensive online collection of various tools to support health organizations to evaluate the leadership development investments effectively and efficiently at five impact levels including ROI.

BACKGROUND: The proliferation of systematic reviews has impacted library operations and activities as librarians support, collaborate, and perform more tasks in the systematic review process. This case report describes a toolkit that librarians with extensive experience in supporting multiple review teams use to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process.
METHODS: The toolkit is a compilation of documents that we use to effectively communicate with and help review teams understand and navigate each stage of the systematic review process. Elements included in the toolkit and discussed in this case report are intake forms, communication templates and memoranda, a process flow diagram, library guides on tools for retrieval and data appraisal, and established standards for guidance during the write-up stage. We describe the use of the toolkit for both education and project management, with a focus on its use in helping manage team time, resources, and expectations.
CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review toolkit helps librarians connect systematic review steps and tasks to actionable items. The content facilitates and supports discussion and learning by both librarians and team members. This toolkit helps librarians share important information and resources for each stage of the process.