One of the challenges of writing strategies in small (health care) libraries is being able to look outside the library and see what forces might shape the Opportunities and Threats we face in the future. In other words the PEST analysis (Political, Economic, Societal and Technological factors) that underpins the strategy writing process. What are they and by what mechanisms do they effect our services? This year I have been brave and put it in a public space in the hope of constructive criticism and inspired contributions. See the link below. Note that there are some factors here that may have a geographic / cultural context for the UK.
https://lihnnclinicallibs.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/crowd-sourcing-the-pest-analysis-by-matt-holland/
I know from working with graduate nursing students, online opportunities are the easiest for them to use when writing papers etc. The easier it is to access journals and find sources the better. What I have noticed is the students go for full text journals online. Sometimes there are better sources but they require the library sending a copy to the student. The faster that can happen the more likely the students will use that option.
I have access externally to a healthcare library in the US which usually will send me a non full text article within a few days. So far I also have not had to pay for any. I don't know how they do that.
As far as evaluation, it is a trend to look at outcomes versus process. How many time someone accesses a journal is process. How many times someone gets a better grade on a paper or publishes an article because of accessing a journal article, is excellent outcome. Granted those outcomes are more difficult to obtain.
Good luck with your project. It is admirable!
It seems to me that one of the most important issues for small health care libraries - and I'm thinking hospital or clinic - is the tension between high-tech and high-touch. Many organizations are moving to centralize services within a larger organization (eg: a health authority) and supply them in e-format, instead of having small libraries. In health care, much of the content is available electronically, so high-tech seems to be the the most sensible answer. However, we also know that most health professionals are time-starved people who work in a world one-on-one contact and at some level value that kind of service for themselves. They love high-tech when it works, but when it doesn't they want to talk to a real person who can fix the problem and get them what they need.
Madelaine, thank you for your comment. The point you make about preferring online for text is a good one. Most of our users are "born digital" or "digital natives". There default position is that resources are available online and through mobile devices. For some, the "iPhone" generation (sorry about all the labels) the idea that you print anything as a starting point and then copy it and send it in the post is strange. I am going to make this clearer in my analysis.
Hi Sandra, thank you for your comment. There is a real challenge in persuading users / decision makers distinguishing investment in eResources and investment in Librarians. However resources are delivered, the intervening skills or a Librarian to help busy clinicians get though to the evidence they need is probably more valuable to them than ever, as time pressures increase.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Internet