The Use of Search Request Forms Can Identify Gaps in a Consumer Health Library Collection

IF 0.4 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Pub Date : 2022-09-19 DOI:10.18438/eblip30187
M. Bridgeman
{"title":"The Use of Search Request Forms Can Identify Gaps in a Consumer Health Library Collection","authors":"M. Bridgeman","doi":"10.18438/eblip30187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A Review of:\nGiannopoulos, E., Snow, M., Manley, M., McEwan, K., Stechkevich, A., Giuliani, M. E., & Papadakos, J. (2021). Identifying gaps in consumer health library collections: A retrospective review. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 109(4), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.895\nAbstract\nObjective – The objective of this study was to determine if search request forms, which are used when a patron’s request for information cannot be fulfilled at the time of contact with the library team, can be used to identify gaps in consumer health library collections while offering some explanation for the gaps.\nDesign – Retrospective case study of search request forms.\nSetting – A consumer health library at an academic cancer center in Canada.\nSubjects – Library patrons: Patients, Patient family, other members of the center, and unspecified.\nMethods – The researchers reviewed 260 search request forms submitted between 2013 and 2020. Of those, 249 records met inclusion criteria and were analyzed and coded. Coding included patron type, cancer diagnosis, information delivery, and content themes. This information was then used to identify gaps in the library collection and the reasons for the gaps.\nMain Results – Patients were the primary patrons, asking 62.9% of the questions, followed by family members at 22.5%. The most common cancer type researched was breast at 23.3%, then hematology at 16.5%. gynecology, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and sarcoma were next between 10% and 8.4%. The remaining cancer types ranged between 6.0 % and 2.0%, with brain being the lowest. Of the questions asked, 60% revealed a gap in the collection. The gaps included rare cancer diagnosis, treatment options, and prognosis. There were data collected on why the information was unavailable. While 53% of the gaps were a result of limited health consumer information, 25% were a result of paywall restrictions or content restricted to members.\nConclusion – Search request forms can be an effective tool in evaluating gaps in collections. In this study, the researchers were able to identify that breast cancer patients made up the most significant proportion of patrons, and the biggest gaps in the collection were related to their treatment decisions. One opportunity to bridge this gap is through collaboration with clinical teams in developing patient friendly resources on this topic. In addition, inter-institutional collaboration between libraries may also help. Continued review of forms can help inform collection decisions to better meet the needs of patrons.","PeriodicalId":45227,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A Review of: Giannopoulos, E., Snow, M., Manley, M., McEwan, K., Stechkevich, A., Giuliani, M. E., & Papadakos, J. (2021). Identifying gaps in consumer health library collections: A retrospective review. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 109(4), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.895 Abstract Objective – The objective of this study was to determine if search request forms, which are used when a patron’s request for information cannot be fulfilled at the time of contact with the library team, can be used to identify gaps in consumer health library collections while offering some explanation for the gaps. Design – Retrospective case study of search request forms. Setting – A consumer health library at an academic cancer center in Canada. Subjects – Library patrons: Patients, Patient family, other members of the center, and unspecified. Methods – The researchers reviewed 260 search request forms submitted between 2013 and 2020. Of those, 249 records met inclusion criteria and were analyzed and coded. Coding included patron type, cancer diagnosis, information delivery, and content themes. This information was then used to identify gaps in the library collection and the reasons for the gaps. Main Results – Patients were the primary patrons, asking 62.9% of the questions, followed by family members at 22.5%. The most common cancer type researched was breast at 23.3%, then hematology at 16.5%. gynecology, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and sarcoma were next between 10% and 8.4%. The remaining cancer types ranged between 6.0 % and 2.0%, with brain being the lowest. Of the questions asked, 60% revealed a gap in the collection. The gaps included rare cancer diagnosis, treatment options, and prognosis. There were data collected on why the information was unavailable. While 53% of the gaps were a result of limited health consumer information, 25% were a result of paywall restrictions or content restricted to members. Conclusion – Search request forms can be an effective tool in evaluating gaps in collections. In this study, the researchers were able to identify that breast cancer patients made up the most significant proportion of patrons, and the biggest gaps in the collection were related to their treatment decisions. One opportunity to bridge this gap is through collaboration with clinical teams in developing patient friendly resources on this topic. In addition, inter-institutional collaboration between libraries may also help. Continued review of forms can help inform collection decisions to better meet the needs of patrons.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用搜索请求表单可以识别消费者健康图书馆馆藏中的差距
回顾:Giannopoulos, E., Snow, M., Manley, M., McEwan, K., Stechkevich, A., Giuliani, M. E., & Papadakos, J.(2021)。识别消费者健康图书馆馆藏的差距:一项回顾性审查。医学图书馆协会杂志:JMLA, 109(4), 656-666。https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.895AbstractObjective -本研究的目的是确定搜索请求表格,当用户的信息请求不能在与图书馆团队联系时得到满足时使用,可以用来识别消费者健康图书馆馆藏的差距,同时为差距提供一些解释。设计-搜索请求表单的回顾性案例研究。设置-消费者健康图书馆在学术癌症中心在加拿大。对象-图书馆顾客:病人、病人家属、中心的其他成员和未指明的。方法:研究人员审查了2013年至2020年间提交的260份搜索申请表。其中249条记录符合纳入标准,并进行了分析和编码。编码包括赞助人类型、癌症诊断、信息传递和内容主题。然后使用这些信息来确定图书馆馆藏中的差距以及产生差距的原因。主要结果:患者是主要的顾客,提出了62.9%的问题,其次是家庭成员,占22.5%。最常见的癌症类型是乳腺癌,占23.3%,其次是血液病,占16.5%。其次是妇科、胃肠道、泌尿生殖系统和肉瘤,在10%到8.4%之间。其余癌症类型的发病率在6.0%到2.0%之间,其中脑癌的发病率最低。在被问及的问题中,60%的人透露了藏品的缺口。这些差距包括罕见癌症的诊断、治疗方案和预后。有收集到的数据说明了为什么无法获得这些信息。53%的差距是由于健康消费者信息有限造成的,25%是由于付费墙限制或内容仅限于会员。结论-搜索请求表单可以是评估收集差距的有效工具。在这项研究中,研究人员能够确定乳腺癌患者在赞助人中所占的比例最大,而收集的最大差距与他们的治疗决定有关。弥合这一差距的一个机会是通过与临床团队合作,开发有关该主题的对患者友好的资源。此外,图书馆之间的机构间合作也可能有所帮助。对表格的持续审查有助于为收集决策提供信息,从而更好地满足读者的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evidence Summary Theme: All Things Virtual Call for Applicants for EBLIP Journal: Production Editor Differences Between the Perception and Use of Virtual Reference Services for Complex Questions Experiences, Benefits, and Challenges of Virtual Teamwork for Public Libraries in the US Midwest during the COVID-19 Pandemic Bangladesh Public Libraries' Response to COVID-19 Pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1