Barbara L Folb1, Charles B Wessel, Leslie J Czechowski. 1. NLM Informationist Fellow, Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA. folb@pitt.edu
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.
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.
Authors: Nancy Hrinya Tannery; Jill E Foust; Amy L Gregg; Linda M Hartman; Alice B Kuller; Paul Worona; Asher A Tulsky Journal: J Med Libr Assoc Date: 2002-07