Circulation of core collection monographs in an academic medical library

Academic medical librarians responsible for monograph acquisition face a challenging task. From the plethora of medical monographs published each year, academic medical librarians must select those most useful to their patrons. Unfortunately, none of the selection tools available to medical librarians are specifically intended to assist academic librarians with medical monograph selection. The few short core collection lists that are available are intended for use in the small hospital or internal medicine department library. As these are the only selection tools available, however, many academic medical librarians spend considerable time reviewing these collection lists and place heavy emphasis on the acquisition of listed books. The study reported here was initiated to determine whether the circulation of listed books in an academic library justified the emphasis placed on the acquisition of these books. Circulation statistics for “listed” and “nonlisted” books in the hematology (WH) section of Indiana University School of Medicine's Ruth Lilly Medical Library were studied. The average circulation figures for listed books were nearly two times as high as the corresponding figures for the WH books in general. These data support the policies of those academic medical libraries that place a high priority on collection of listed books.

Providing health information to the general public: a survey of current practices in academic health sciences libraries*

A questionnaire was mailed to 148 publicly and privately supported academic health sciences libraries affiliated with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)–accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada to determine level of access and services provided to the general public. For purposes of this study, “general public” was defined as nonaffiliated students or health care professionals, attorneys and other nonhealth-related professionals, patients from affiliated or other hospitals or clinics, and general consumers. One hundred five (71%) libraries responded. Results showed 98% of publicly supported libraries and 88% of privately supported libraries provided access to some or all of the general public. Publicly supported libraries saw greater numbers of public patrons, often provided more services, and were more likely to circulate materials from their collections than were privately supported libraries. A significant number of academic health sciences libraries housed a collection of consumer-oriented materials and many provided some level of document delivery service, usually for a fee. Most allowed the public to use some or all library computers. Results of this study indicated that academic health sciences libraries played a significant role in serving the information-seeking public and suggested a need to develop written policies or guidelines covering the services that will be provided to minimize the impact of this service on primary clientele.

Public library consumer health information pilot project: results of a National Library of Medicine evaluation

In October 1998, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) launched a pilot project to learn about the role of public libraries in providing health information to the public and to generate information that would assist NLM and the National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM) in learning how best to work with public libraries in the future. Three regional medical libraries (RMLs), eight resource libraries, and forty-one public libraries or library systems from nine states and the District of Columbia were selected for participation. The pilot project included an evaluation component that was carried out in parallel with project implementation. The evaluation ran through September 1999. The results of the evaluation indicated that participating public librarians were enthusiastic about the training and information materials provided as part of the project and that many public libraries used the materials and conducted their own outreach to local communities and groups. Most libraries applied the modest funds to purchase additional Internet-accessible computers and/or upgrade their health-reference materials. However, few of the participating public libraries had health information centers (although health information was perceived as a top-ten or top-five topic of interest to patrons). Also, the project generated only minimal usage of NLM's consumer health database, known as MEDLINEplus, from the premises of the monitored libraries (patron usage from home or office locations was not tracked). The evaluation results suggested a balanced follow-up by NLM and the NN/LM, with a few carefully selected national activities, complemented by a package of targeted activities that, as of January 2000, are being planned, developed, or implemented. The results also highlighted the importance of building an evaluation component into projects like this one from the outset, to assure that objectives were met and that evaluative information was available on a timely basis, as was the case here.