Darra Ballance, MLIS, AHIP

Julie K. Gaines, MLIS

Kathy Davies, MLS

Kim Mears, MLIS, AHIP

Lindsay Blake, MLIS, AHIP

Maryska Connolly-Brown, MLIS

Peter Shipman, MLIS

Vicki Burchfield, MLIS

Objective: The study measured the perceived value of an academic library’s embedded librarian service model.Setting: The study took place at the health sciences campuses of a research institution.Methods: A web-based survey was distributed that asked respondents a series of questions about their utilization of and satisfaction with embedded librarians and services.Results: Over 58% of respondents reported being aware of their embedded librarians, and 95% of these were satisfied with provided services.Conclusions: The overall satisfaction with services was encouraging, but awareness of the embedded program was low, suggesting an overall need for marketing of services.</jats:p

Lindsay Blake

Darra Ballance

Kathy Davies

Julie K. Gaines

Kim Mears

Peter Shipman

Maryska Connolly-Brown

Vicki Burchfield

Crossref

Patron perception and utilization of an embedded librarianprogramLindsay Blake, MLIS, AHIP; Darra Ballance, MLIS, AHIP; Kathy Davies, MLS; Julie K. Gaines, MLIS; KimMears, MLIS, AHIP; Peter Shipman, MLIS; Maryska Connolly-Brown, MLIS; Vicki Burchfield, MLISSee end of article for authors’ affiliations. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.008Objective: The study measured the perceived value of an academic library’s embedded librarianservice model.Setting: The study took place at the health sciences campuses of a research institution.Methods: A web-based survey was distributed that asked respondents a series of questions abouttheir utilization of and satisfaction with embedded librarians and services.Results: Over 58% of respondents reported being aware of their embedded librarians, and 95% ofthese were satisfied with provided services.Conclusions: The overall satisfaction with services was encouraging, but awareness of the embeddedprogram was low, suggesting an overall need for marketing of services.Keywords: Library Surveys[MeSH], Perception[MeSH], Embedded Librarians, Evaluation, LibraryServices, Awareness, SatisfactionEmbedded librarianship is a service model thatmoves librarians physically away from the librarybuilding and places them where patrons work.‘‘Embedded’’ can mean physical space within aschool, academic department, or research group, orlibrarians may be virtually embedded in onlinecourses. Working in close proximity to patrons inspecific disciplines allows the librarian to moreaccurately assess needs and develop customizedprograms and services beyond traditional libraryreference services. New roles for embeddedlibrarians may include becoming partners forscholarly research, pursuing grant funding, or beingappointed to college governing committees.Embedded librarians can expand their roles bylearning and incorporating nontraditional skills suchas data management planning, research impactmeasurement, and scholarly communication.The implementation of the embedded servicemodel at Augusta University has already beenreported [1]. While there are descriptions of manyfacets of embedded librarian service, there is nocomprehensive tool evaluating the activities ofembedded librarians that can answer the question:how do patrons perceive the value of embeddedlibrarian services? We sought to measure theawareness and perception of the new service modelamong clinicians, faculty, and students with a surveyinstrument.METHODSSurveyA web-based survey was distributed to healthsciences students, residents, faculty, and cliniciansusing Qualtrics software (Appendix, online only).The study team began survey development byThis article has been approved for the Medical LibraryAssociation’s Independent Reading Program ,http://www.mlanet.org/page/independent-reading-program..A supplemental appendix is available with the online versionof this journal.226 J Med Libr Assoc 104(3) July 2016SURVEYS AND STUDIEScollaborating with experts from the university’sEducational Innovation Institute (EII). Input from EIIconsultants helped the study team apply establishedprinciples to increase the internal validity of surveyresults. Specific validity components that wereexamined included content and internal structure [2].Institutional review board approval was granted forthe study. The survey was distributed by email to asample of health sciences librarians, both embeddedand traditional, for input and critique. Additionally,focus interviews were conducted on campus withstudents, faculty, and residents to obtain feedback onthe questions and survey format.Changes to the survey were made to reflect theresponses received from librarian reviews andcampus interview sessions. The final web-basedsurvey was distributed by email in April 2015 to allAugusta University students, full-time faculty,clinicians, and residents in areas where embeddedlibrarians were assigned: four colleges, two hospitaldepartments, and one institute. Responses weresolicited for four weeks; weekly reminder emailswere sent; and the embedded librarians personallyencouraged participation from their embeddedareas.The survey included both Likert-scale and open-ended questions and began by defining ‘‘embeddedlibrarian.’’ Respondents were then asked about theirawareness of the embedded librarian program.Thumbnail photographs of each embedded librarianassisted respondents with identifying the librarianswith whom they have worked. Respondents whowere unfamiliar with the program and unable toidentify a librarian were directed to open-endedquestions to explore why. The remainingrespondents self-identified as a student, resident,clinician, or faculty member and then were routed toquestions specific to that role. The question set variedaccording to role: student questions related toclasswork and use of library resources, facultyquestions related to teaching and research, andclinician or resident questions related to patient careand clinical training. Because most faculty also fulfillclinical roles, respondents who identified as facultyor clinician had the opportunity to answer both setsof questions.AnalysisAll statistical analysis was performed by astatistician from the Department of Biostatistics andEpidemiology using SAS 9.4. Descriptive statistics(frequency and percent) were calculated for surveyresponses regarding awareness, use, and satisfactionwith embedded librarians for students, faculty, andclinician or resident respondents.RESULTSThe survey was distributed to more than 4,000students, faculty, and residents and was completedby 381 respondents, resulting in a response rate of10%. Over 58% of total respondents reported beingaware of their colleges’ or departments’ embeddedlibrarians. Respondents who did not recognize anembedded librarian by name or photograph or hadnot worked with an embedded librarian accountedfor 45% of the total responses, while the remaining55% of respondents chose 1 or more librarians whohad worked with them. Most respondents who hadindicated awareness of their colleges’ ordepartments’ embedded librarians had contacted anembedded librarian 1–5 times within the last 12months (70%). Contact occurred primarily throughemail (77%) and in person (64%). Respondents whowere aware of their colleges’ or departments’embedded librarians were asked to identify theirprimary appointment or college (Figure 1).Student responsesNearly 82% of the 106 students who indicatedworking with a librarian were also aware that alibrarian was embedded in their colleges. Elevenstudents (10.6%) had worked with 2 or moreembedded librarians. Embedded librarian servicesused most frequently by students included assistancewith classwork or homework assignments (58.7%),group or classroom instruction (52.9%), andliterature searching (53.9%).A breakdown of results by college revealedunique perspectives on the value of library services.Allied health sciences students strongly agreed thatlibrarian assistance helped them completeassignments and improved their grades and projects.Dental students felt that assistance from librariansimproved their literature searching skills andprojects and increased their confidence in completingresearch. Nursing students felt more confident intheir literature searches, completion of assignments,and research. They also felt that librarian assistanceled to an improvement in their grades. Medicalstudents agreed, but did not strongly agree, thatworking with a librarian helped them in class andAn embedded librarian programJ Med Libr Assoc 104(3) July 2016 227with completion of assignments, improvement ofgrades and projects, and confidence in their literaturesearches and research.Overall, most students (94%) agreed or stronglyagreed that they were satisfied with the services thatthe embedded librarians provided, and 84% agreedor strongly agreed that they would seek out the helpof an embedded librarian for future projects orassignments.Faculty (non-clinician) responsesAround 93% of the 43 faculty respondents wereaware that embedded librarians worked with themin their colleges. Email was the most popular form ofcontact (93.0%), followed by in person (58.1%) andphone (41.9%). This was also the only group in thesurvey to use text messaging.Literature search services were by far the mostpopular among faculty, with 83.7% saying they hadworked with an embedded librarian for theseservices. Additional services that faculty frequentlyused included online teaching of a course (41.9%),publication (34.9%), and scholarly support (27.9%).The majority of faculty agreed or strongly agreed(97.6%) that embedded librarians saved them timeand were an integral part of their groups (95.3%).Most faculty agreed or strongly agreed (96.9%) thatliterature searches conducted by the embeddedlibrarian helped them make better decisions abouttheir work. All faculty agreed that they wouldcontact their embedded librarian again in the future.Clinician and resident responsesSixty-three clinicians, which included residents andfaculty with clinical appointments, completed thesurvey. Respondents indicated using librarianassistance for providing education on rounds (67%),managing patient care (55%), and aiding their choiceof tests (36%) or treatments (36%). Informationprovided by the librarian most commonly resulted inchanges in education during rounds (44%),management of patient care (36.5%), and choice oftest (24%).Figure 1Survey respondents by college and institutionBlake et al.228 J Med Libr Assoc 104(3) July 2016DISCUSSIONOur team’s goal for the survey was to measurepatron perception and use of embedded librarians atour institution. We accomplished this by assessingpatron knowledge of the overall embedded programand individual embedded librarians, patron use ofspecific embedded services, and the perceived valueof embedded services and librarians. Ultimately, thissurvey asked respondents to expand upon theirexperiences by providing information such as howusers customarily contacted embedded librarians,what services they used, and what impact—positiveor negative—they felt that embedded librarians hadon their work or research.The survey suggests that perception—or how ourpatrons understand our role and value—may be thearea needing the most improvement. To gaugeperception of the program, the term ‘‘embeddedlibrarian’’ was first clearly defined. It is important tonote that all recipients of the survey belonged to acollege or department with an embedded librarian.Of 381 responses, nearly 55% were able to correctlyidentify an embedded librarian by photograph. Thissuggested that the embedded librarians werefamiliar faces in those colleges, but that librariansshould work harder to promote themselves and therange of services that they provide through theembedded program.The majority of contact with embedded librarianswas conducted through email and in person, ratherthan through the learning management system,phone calls, or text messaging. Surprisingly, despitethe ease and availability of electronic means ofcontact, respondents indicated that they initiatedcontact with a librarian in person nearly 64% of thetime. This would indicate that having a physicalpresence prompts more frequent use of the librarianand library services. Indeed, Clyde and Lee notedthat a physical presence in buildings was associatedwith increased student and faculty unscheduledconsultations, increased requests for class instructionand research support, and increased invitations todepartmental events [3]. This supports the value ofhaving a librarian on site to answer questions as theyarise.Individuals who did not identify an embeddedlibrarian in the survey were asked if there was areason that they had not had the opportunity towork with an embedded librarian. Many stated thatthey were unaware of the embedded librarians andexpressed uncertainty over the extent of providedservices. Others stated that they had not had aproject that would require the use of embeddedlibrarian services. When asked what would helprespondents consult their embedded librarians moreoften, the participants indicated that increasedadvertising of embedded services would beadvantageous, as well as an increased presence inclinical departments or colleges.Additional open-ended questions were evaluatedfor overall themes. When asked in what ways anembedded librarian added value to classes and/orsessions, respondents indicated that the librarianassisted with class projects and taught valuableliterature searching skills in both the academic andclinical setting. Of note, one respondent indicatedthat ‘‘all the embedded librarians have made asignificant impact in my research, teaching, andservice to the [university] community.’’ When askedto identify additional services that embeddedlibrarians should provide, respondents indicated thatembedded librarian services at satellite campuseswere needed, as well as assistance with literaturesearching for systematic reviews.Accurate assessment regarding perceptions of anembedded program is hard to obtain and measure,yet is vitally important to giving a more completepicture of the overall success of a program.Deficiency in any area can impact the effectiveness ofan embedded program. For example, failure toinform users of available services or lack of follow-through when providing those services can bothnegatively impact perception of the program and thelibrary in general. To this end, many of the questionsin our survey were designed to measure howlibrarians were viewed and the impact that they wereperceived to have on research quality, learningobjectives, and work outcomes. The overallsatisfaction with services was encouraging, with 95%of respondents who had worked with a librarianagreeing or strongly agreeing that embedded servicesadded value to projects, embedded librarians were anintegral part of the group, and the services ofembedded librarians would be used in the future.Circumstances vary from one college to the next,making embedded librarians and the services thatthey provide quite different even within aninstitution. Because college and departmental needsvary, the survey could not list all basic andspecialized services provided by each embeddedlibrarian. Qualitative research has also not been donein each embedded area. While this type of researchwould give a more unbiased picture of the value ofAn embedded librarian programJ Med Libr Assoc 104(3) July 2016 229embedded librarians, it would necessarily have to betailored to all librarians and their embedded areas.Since the goal is a unified embedded evaluation, amore inclusive approach was required.LimitationsOne major limitation in our study was a responserate of just 10%. The majority of respondents mayrepresent the population who have had a positiveexperience with the program in the past or have apreexisting relationship due to ongoing research orcollaboration. This population would be more likelyto have daily contact with embedded librarians and,as such, have received more reminders about thesurvey and had more motivation to participate. Incontrast, other potential respondents would havereceived only the initial and follow-up emails. Theonline format was selected for ease of distributionand anonymity but may have presented anotherlimitation as technological aptitude, browsercompatibility, and other unforeseen technicalchallenges could have prevented some potentialrespondents from participating.REFERENCES1. Blake L, Mears K, Davies K, Ballance D, Shipman P,Connolly-Brown M, Gaines JK. Adapting an embeddedmodel of librarianship, college by college. Med Ref ServQ. 2014;33(3):264–77. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2014.925668.2. Downing SM. Validity: on meaningful interpretation ofassessment data. Med Educ. 2003 Sep;37(9):830–7.3. Clyde J, Lee J. Embedded reference to embeddedlibrarianship: 6 years at the University of Calgary. J LibrAdministration. 2011;51(4):389–402. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2011.556963.AUTHORS’ AFFILIATIONSLindsay Blake, MLIS, AHIP,lblake@augusta.edu, ClinicalLibrarian; Darra Ballance,MLIS, AHIP, dballance@augusta.edu, Area Health Ed-ucation Centers (AHEC) Li-brarian; Kathy Davies, MLS,kadavies@augusta.edu, Asso-ciate Director of Research;Robert B. Greenblatt M.D. Li-brary, Augusta University, 1120 15th Street, Augusta,GA 30912; Julie K. Gaines, MLIS, jkgaines@uga.edu,Head, Augusta University/University of GeorgiaPartnership Campus Library, Augusta University,Health Science Campus, Russell Hall, Room 222,Athens, GA 30602; Kim Mears, MLIS, AHIP,kmears@augusta.edu, Scholarly Communications Li-brarian; Peter Shipman, MLIS, pshipman@augusta.edu, Dental Medicine and Cancer Librarian;Robert B. Greenblatt M.D. Library, Augusta Univer-sity, 1120 15th Street, Augusta, GA 30912; MaryskaConnolly-Brown, MLIS, mconnolly-brown@hsc.edu, Technical Services Librarian, Walter M.Bortz III Library, Hampden-Sydney College, P.O.Box 7, Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943; Vicki Burch-field, MLIS, vburchfield@augusta.edu, Nursing In-formation Librarian, Robert B. Greenblatt M.D.Library, Augusta University, 1120 15th Street, Au-gusta, GA 30912Received July 2015; accepted February 2016Blake et al.230 J Med Libr Assoc 104(3) July 2016

Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA

Patron perception and utilization of an embedded librarian program

http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/download/16/11

Patron perception and utilization of an embedded librarian program

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref