Dataset Information

Clinical and academic use of electronic and print books: the Health Sciences Library System e-book study at the University of Pittsburgh.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the Health Sciences Library System (HSLS) electronic book (e-book) study was to assess use, and factors affecting use, of e-books by all patron groups of an academic health sciences library serving both university and health system-affiliated patrons. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to a random sample (n=5,292) of holders of library remote access passwords. A total of 871 completed and 108 partially completed surveys were received, for an approximate response rate of 16.5%-18.5%, with all user groups represented. Descriptive and chi-square analysis was done using SPSS 17. RESULTS: Library e-books were used by 55.4% of respondents. Use by role varied: 21.3% of faculty reported having assigned all or part of an e-book for class readings, while 86% of interns, residents, and fellows reported using an e-book to support clinical care. Respondents preferred print for textbooks and manuals and electronic format for research protocols, pharmaceutical, and reference books, but indicated high flexibility about format choice. They rated printing and saving e-book content as more important than annotation, highlighting, and bookmarking features. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents' willingness to use alternate formats, if convenient, suggests that libraries can selectively reduce title duplication between print and e-books and still support library user information needs, especially if publishers provide features that users want. Marketing and user education may increase use of e-book collections.

SUBMITTER: Folb BL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3133903 | biostudies-other | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical and academic use of electronic and print books: the Health Sciences Library System e-book study at the University of Pittsburgh.

Folb Barbara L BL Wessel Charles B CB Czechowski Leslie J LJ

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20110701 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>The purpose of the Health Sciences Library System (HSLS) electronic book (e-book) study was to assess use, and factors affecting use, of e-books by all patron groups of an academic health sciences library serving both university and health system-affiliated patrons.<h4>Methods</h4>A web-based survey was distributed to a random sample (n=5,292) of holders of library remote access passwords. A total of 871 completed and 108 partially completed surveys were received, for an appro ...[more]

PMID: 21753914

Similar Datasets

Project description:Scholarly books are important outputs in some fields and their many publishing formats seem to introduce opportunities to scrutinize their impact. As there is a growing interest in the publisher-enforced massive collection of ebooks in libraries in the past decade, this study examined how this influences the relationship that library print holdings (LPH), library electronic holdings (LEH) and total library holdings (TLH) have with other metrics. As a follow up study to a previous research on OCLC library holdings, the relationship between library holdings and twelve other metrics including Scopus Citations, Google Books (GB) Citations, Goodreads engagements, and Altmetric indicators were examined for 119,794 Scopus-indexed book titles across 26 fields. Present study confirms the weak correlation levels observed between TLH and other indicators in previous studies and contributes additional evidence that print holdings can moderately reflect research, educational and online impact of books consistently more efficient than eholdings and total holdings across fields and over time, except for Mendeley for which eholdings slightly prevailed. Regression models indicated that along with other dimensions, Google Books Citations frequently best explained LPH (in 14 out of 26 fields), whereas Goodreads User counts were weak, but the best predictor of both LEH and TLH (in 15 fields out of 26), suggesting significant association of eholdings with online uptake of books. Overall, findings suggest that inclusion of eholdings overrides the more impactful counts of print holdings in Total Library Holdings metric and therefore undermines the statistical results, whilst print holdings has both statistically and theoretically promising underlying assumptions for prediction of impact of books and shows greater promise than the general Library Holding metric for book impact assessment. Thus, there is a need for a distinction between print and electronic holding counts to be made, otherwise total library holding data need to be interpreted with caution.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-021-04239-9.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In the past two decades, scientific publications in Iran have considerably increased their medical science content, and the number of articles published in ISI journals has doubled between 1997 and 2001. The aim of the present study was to determine how frequently knowledge transfer strategies were applied in Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS). We were also interested in studying the determining factors leading to the type of strategy selected. METHODOLOGY: All TUMS research projects that had received grants from inside and outside the university in 2004, and were completed by the end of 2006, were included in the study. In total, 301 projects were examined, and data on each of the projects were collected by the research team using a standardized questionnaire. The projects' principle investigators filled out a second questionnaire. In all, 208 questionnaires were collected. RESULTS: Researchers stated being more engaged in the passive strategies of knowledge transfer, especially those publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The mean score for the researchers' performance in passive and active strategies were 22% and 9% of the total score, respectively. Linear regression analysis showed that the passive strategy score decreased with the increase in the number of years working as a professional (p = 0.01) and personal interest as the only reason for choosing the research topic (p = 0.01). Regarding the active strategies of knowledge transfer, health system research studies significantly raised the score (p = 0.02) and 'executive responsibility' significantly lowered it (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: As a study carried out in a Middle Eastern developing country, we see that, like many other universities in the world, many academicians still do not give priority to active strategies of knowledge transfer. Therefore, if 'linking knowledge to action' is necessary, it may also be necessary to introduce considerable changes in academic procedures and encouragement policies (e.g., employment and promotion criteria of academic members).

Dataset Information

Clinical and academic use of electronic and print books: the Health Sciences Library System e-book study at the University of Pittsburgh.

Publications

Clinical and academic use of electronic and print books: the Health Sciences Library System e-book study at the University of Pittsburgh.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets