Content Access via Resource Sharing Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from Nine Health Science Libraries

Jenny Pierce
Head of Research, Education and Outreach Services
Ginsburg Health Sciences Library
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA
jenny.pierce@temple.edu

Caitlin Bakker
Discovery Technologies Librarian
Dr. John Archer Library & Archives
University of Regina
Regina, SK, Canada
caitlin.bakker@uregina.ca

Phill Jo
Associate Professor, Head of Access Services
Robert M. Bird Health Sciences Library
The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences
Oklahoma City, OK
Phill-jo@ou.edu

Jeannine Creazzo
Director, Medical Library, Continuing Education, and Research
Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Somerset
Somerville, NJ
jeannine.creazzo@rwjbh.org

Holly Thompson
Director of Education and Clinical Research Services
University of California San Francisco Library
San Francisco, CA
holly.thompson@ucsf.edu

Kristine M. Alpi
Associate Dean of Libraries and Information Sciences; Professor, Department of Medicine
Gustave L. and Janet W. Levy Library
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
New York, NY
kris.alpi@mssm.edu

Abstract

Keywords: Interlibrary loan, Health sciences libraries, Document Delivery, Technical services

Recommended Citation:

Pierce, J., Bakker, C., Jo, P., Creazzo, J., Thompson, H., & Alpi, K. M. (2025). Content access via resource sharing early in the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from nine health science libraries. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 111. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2829

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges for libraries aiming to provide consistent, reliable access to information for their users. Beginning in March 2020, many Health Science Libraries (HSLs) in the United States closed their physical locations. Many also adapted their interlibrary loan (ILL)/document delivery (DD) services depending on access to their print collections and the availability of resource sharing partner libraries (Creazzo et al., 2021; Lloyd et al., 2022). Because HSLs support any combination of academic, clinical, and research missions of their respective institutions, delays and failures to obtain requested information are problematic and can have a negative impact on patient care, research, teaching and learning.

In response to questions from the HSL community about unfilled requests, a team of librarians planned a three-phase study looking at resource sharing, content access, and costs during the early period of the pandemic, which the project defined as March 2020 to August 2020 (Creazzo et al., 2021). The first phase was an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved workforce survey of HSLs in November 2020 (Lloyd et al., 2022). The survey’s purpose was to provide an understanding of North America’s health-related libraries ILL and DD activities during the early stage of COVID-19. It also provided context of ILL workflow adjustments and decision-making processes.

Of the 431 survey respondents, 94% provided ILL and DD at least part of the time from their online collections. Forty-five percent (45%) of libraries reported ceasing ILL/DD services for print materials, and 43% ceased circulating print items. The survey results suggest that many libraries ceased ILL/DD services for and circulation of print materials while 85% of libraries reported that, via electronic subscriptions, ILL service was uninterrupted. During the study period, another 9% provided ILL services part of the time, and 5% did not offer ILL services at all. Despite an increase in unfilled DOCLINE requests in the early pandemic (6.9% to 10.0%), most respondents (67%) did not purchase digital versions of items not available via ILL. The pandemic led many libraries to evaluate their collections, with 44% of respondents evaluating electronic title usage, 26% evaluating print collection access, 19% evaluating their ILL/DD processes, and 17% evaluating collection gaps (Lloyd et al., 2022).

The second phase of this research project reported on journal borrowing data, which includes monographic serials, for 15 HSLs from the National Library of Medicine’s DOCLINE resource sharing network (Bakker et al., 2023). ILL requests decreased significantly from 2019 to 2020 in both DOCLINE overall and across the 15 libraries, as did the number of unique journals being requested. In 2020, the odds of requests being unfilled were 1.5 times higher than in 2019, and there was a significant decrease in the number of both filled and total requests. The result of inaccessible physical collections and limited library ILL operations, as well as unavailable backfiles, may be the cause of higher levels of unfilled requests.

The focus of this third phase of this research project is to explore questions about resource sharing that required more detailed institutional data to address borrowing and lending via broader resource sharing networks as opposed to focusing exclusively on DOCLINE.

Continuing to research how library staff addressed the pandemic has long-term value. Academic health libraries still feel the impact of the pandemic shutdown. The challenges posed by COVID-19 weren't unique yet felt different within the range of institutions affected. Similar challenges will be faced by individual, regional, and national library staff as they prepare for disasters, both natural and manufactured.

Literature Review

In the early stages of the pandemic, many publishers provided free online access to their content (Huffman, 2020). While free electronic resources helped to ease demand for otherwise inaccessible resources, this access was temporary, and libraries had to turn back to their traditional ILL and DD practices as best they could to fulfill requests (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020).

Individual libraries in academic and hospital environments have reported on services provided during the pandemic, including ILL and DD (Creazzo et al., 2021; Jo et al., 2021; Lloyd et al., 2022; Keshmiripour et al., 2022). Jo et al. (2021) presented an analysis of their library’s physical collection usage data comparing 2020 to 2019. Between March and June 2020, this library processed more than 50% of lending requests and utilized its print collection when other libraries had limited or no access to their print collections. According to Bakker et al. (2023), the higher levels of unfilled requests may be the result of libraries having limited ILL operations and inaccessible physical collections.

Although the cost of print plus online subscriptions for unfilled requests did not increase significantly between 2019 and 2020, the cost of online-only subscriptions did significantly increase (Bakker et al., 2023). Acquiring subscriptions or purchasing backfiles to satisfy unfilled requests would be an expensive proposition for an individual library. While libraries converting from primarily print or print-and-electronic journals have previously considered the option of purchasing backfiles for journals, Bakker et al. found that backfiles were often unavailable. In 2019, 36.1% of unfilled requests were not available for purchase as backfiles, and in 2020, that rose to 45.4% of unfilled requests.

In the majority of libraries, resource sharing continued in some fashion, and most agreed that their needs for digital materials were met (Lloyd et al., 2022). Solo librarians and small hospital libraries transitioned more smoothly to ILL/DD as remote workers as their ILL operations primarily relied on digital materials, and they did not have to coordinate across multiple staff. Academic libraries, by contrast, transitioned more slowly and in many cases with greater difficulty.

The American Library Association conducted a survey of libraries of all types in May 2020 and reported that the majority of academic libraries had either already lost funding or were anticipating losing funding for staff, new hires, professional development, print collections, and programs and services, all of which could negatively impact library services including interlibrary loan and document delivery (Connell et al., 2021). A 2021 survey of North American HSLs found that 43% of respondent libraries stopped circulating print items altogether during the pandemic (Gillum, 2024). These surveys indicate that libraries adapted to new and more restrictive face-to-face policies and practices and at the same time expanded their digital resources and technological initiatives.

Koos and colleagues reported that after the 2020 stay-at-home order required ending all physical lending and borrowing, they found electronic borrowing was much closer to the previous year with one month, April, showing a 37% increase while electronic lending dropped significantly (Koos, J. A. et al., 2021). Keshmiripour et al. (2022) discussed changes in remote and hybrid work changing ILL workflows, including prioritizing purchasing of e-resources to increase accessibility as well as a reliance on e-resources to fill ILL requests.

The financial impact of ILL changes on libraries was difficult to assess (Lloyd et al., 2022). Many factors may affect the cost of an ILL service, including the cost of labor, the geographic location of the library, the use of ILL software, and consortia memberships (Simard et al., 2020). With underlying data about cost modeling relying on a 2004 report (Jackson), it was not feasible to study cost in this phase.

Study Objectives

This study had four research questions related to resource sharing and associated access to collections:

1. How did the rate and reasons for unfilled requests change with the pandemic?
2. How does journal article request data from institutional systems covering all disciplines compare to previously reported article request findings from the health sciences-focused DOCLINE system?
3. How was document delivery impacted? What journal titles were most requested and therefore might be prioritized for acquisitions to enable user self-service?
4. What insight for future digitization decisions by publishers or libraries can be gained from describing physical material borrowing and lending at a time when external constraints made physical resource sharing challenging?

Methods

This study plan was reviewed by the Oregon Health & Science University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and designated as “not human subject research” (STUDY00022454) in December 2021.

Participating Libraries

Of the initial 431 respondents to Lloyd et al.’s 2021 survey of HSLs, 15 libraries agreed to further participate in subsequent phases of this research. Libraries that had expressed interest in sharing their data were asked to provide permission for data release on the “Library Data Sharing Permission Statement” (see Appendix 1). While 15 libraries agreed to participate, only nine (60.0%) were able to provide the requested data. Of the six that did not participate, four did not use ILLiad, one had not retained data from the period requested, and one lacked time to participate.

For the participating libraries, the library type, the number of full-time equivalent staff, access to their print collections, and their open or closed status during the early phase of the pandemic were noted. As part of the “Library Data Sharing Permission Statement”, each library was ensured anonymity and therefore data is only shared in aggregate.

Data Sources

Each institution provided de-identified ILL or DD data consisting of publication source title and publication year from requests for journal articles, conference proceedings, books, and all other types of materials covering the early pandemic period (March-August 2020) and the comparison period of March-August 2019. In ILLiad, borrowing data shows materials provided by other libraries, while lending data contains materials loaned to requesting libraries. Document delivery tracks interactions other than borrowing or lending, such as digitization of articles and book chapters for a library’s patrons or materials obtained from third-party vendors which are not lending libraries.

After the participating libraries completed their permission forms, they received specific instructions to share a list of ILLiad reports (see Appendix 2). Data included the journal, book, or conference title, the publication year, ISSN or ISBN, and the total number of unfilled and filled requests for borrowing, lending, and document delivery collected from their local ILL/DD. The libraries removed all individual requestor information prior to sharing the custom reports with the research team, which was then further redacted as needed, so that it would not be possible to connect any data points to individuals.

Data Preparation

Each participating library uploaded its data to a secure Google Drive folder. Prior to moving files to a cleaned data project folder available only to the study team, the files were quality checked, and clarifications were sought from supplying libraries when necessary. There were separate folders for journal reports, monograph reports, and reports with reasons for filled and unfilled requests to facilitate normalization, aggregation, and further analysis.

The team used OpenRefine (https://openrefine.org) to characterize the data. The researchers imported all the title lists of filled and unfilled monographs, and all of the serials borrowing and lending data, into OpenRefine and normalized items by title, which was the only field available in the borrowing and lending reports. When the unfilled borrowing data included the publication year and publisher/imprint name, the team normalized those to provide additional insight into unfilled titles and publishers/imprints. Where the publication year field provided multiple dates, the team used the earliest possible year. At this stage in the process, the researchers did not seek to complete any missing data gaps by contacting the supplying libraries. As ILL demand could presage publisher decisions to digitize content, the authors assessed how many of the 20 most requested monographs were available in 2023 by researching publisher websites to see if items had become digitally accessible.

Fill Rates and Reasons

The filled and unfilled data reports identified the reasons for unfilled requests for 2020 for each library that could be reasonably associated with the pandemic, such as not providing access to libraries or time delays. Another list identified reasons for unfilled requests that had not been present in 2019, especially those proposed to be used specifically due to COVID responses (Juel, n.d.).

Because the libraries varied greatly in their volume of lending and borrowing activities, the team calculated rates for each library and then aggregated those rates using means, standard deviations, and range to show the variability. They used Z tests for proportions to compare differences in aggregated rates between 2019 and 2020.

The researchers examined comparison reports of the 2019 and 2020 title lists generated from reports for journals borrowed, journals loaned, document delivery journals filled, monographs loaned, and monographs borrowed. Only titles requested or filled by more than one participating library were included to better generalize the findings and ensure any single library’s unique needs did not have an undue influence on the results.

Results

Characteristics of Participating Libraries

Participation spanned the United States including urban HSLs in Western, Midwestern, Midcontinental, South Central, and Eastern states. Of the nine libraries that replied to the invitation, six (66.7%) identified as “Academic Health Sciences Center / Academic Medical Center,” two (22.2%) were “Academic (supporting health programs, but not at a health sciences or medical center),” and 1 (11.1%) was an “Association, health or medical-related.” No hospital libraries participated in the study.

Participating libraries reported having full-time staff ranging from six to 40 people, with 19 being the average. All the libraries had print collections available between March and August 2019 and in 2020. Four (44.4%) of the libraries never closed during the pandemic shutdown. The others closed in March of 2020 and reopened at different times, mainly between May and August. One library was only closed for four days, reopening in March 2020.

Comparing Resource Sharing Rates

Resource sharing activity was much lower in 2020 compared to 2019 in these libraries. The average rate of borrowing decreased 67.1% (SD 31.7%), and lending decreased on average 44.7% (SD 68.2%). DD on average showed little change, decreasing 1.9%, though this varied widely (SD 45.5%).

Reasons for Unfilled Requests for Borrowing

The accumulated borrowing cancellation reasons provided by nine libraries reflect a variety of factors. Three were based on users’ behavior (Cancelled by patrons; Duplicate requests; Not as cited/citation problems), three reasons were based on library policy (Copyright; Non-circulating items; Theses/Dissertations/Textbooks), and two were based on availability (In-Use; Too new). The “Other” category for borrowing cancellation reasons was not analyzed because each library uses the “other” category with a different reason.

In this study, five borrowing cancellation reasons were reviewed that resulted in unfilled borrow requests that could have been potentially impacted by the pandemic (see Figure 1). The five borrowing cancellation reasons are: “Exhausted,” “Deadline,” “Cost,” “Purchasing,” and “Covid-19.” Under the ILLiad system, “exhausted” means that none of the libraries through which the request was routed could fill the request. Eight of the nine libraries used these reasons when they could not obtain an item by routing it through multiple lending libraries. The “exhausted” rate was 17.2% higher in 2020. “Deadline” means that borrowing libraries could not fill requests within the patrons’ requested timeframe. The rate of not being filled by the deadline was 161.1% higher in 2020. “Cost” means that the fee charged by the lending library was higher than the borrowing library was willing to pay. Borrowing cancellations due to cost decreased by 42.9% in 2020. It is not known whether this resulted from borrowing libraries increasing the maximum cost they were willing to pay, or lending libraries reducing fees during the pandemic. “Purchasing” means that libraries purchased items instead of borrowing them. “Purchasing” or “Acquisition” option was reported only by two libraries. One institution’s major change in borrowing practice resulted in a skewed report, purchasing 635 borrowing item requests in 2020. Only two libraries created a new cancellation reason specified as “COVID-19.” It is not clear what internal or external factors this reason reflected such as staffing issues or collection inaccessibility.

The combined borrowing cancellation rate of the nine libraries was 57.1% lower in 2020 (n = 2,005) than 2019 (n = 4,680). These five reasons comprised 74.7% (n=1499) of canceled requests in 2020 versus 16.6% (n=780) in 2019. Excluding the COVID-19 code, the four remaining cancellation reasons were 85.7% higher in 2020 (780 vs. 1,449).

Reasons for Unfilled Requests for Lending

The accumulated lending cancellation rate of the nine libraries was 76.7% higher in 2020 (n = 30,471) than in 2019 (n=17,249). This study analyzed four lending cancellation reasons: “Deadline,” “E-resource licensing restriction,” “Offsite,” and Covid-19.” The “Deadline” and “Covid-19” reasons are defined above. “E-resource licensing restriction” indicates that the lending library has access to the requested item electronically but its licensing agreement with the publisher prevents the item from being shared via ILL. The “Offsite” reason indicates that the lending library did not have access their collections for unspecified reasons.

These four selected cancellation reasons (see Figure 2) comprised 51.5% of the canceled requests in 2020 versus 11.6% in 2019. Compared to 2019 (n = 1,996), the four cancellation reasons were 687.1% higher in 2020 (n = 15,710).

Journal Article Borrowing Requests

Between 2019 and 2020, there was a 2.9% decrease in the number of requests made for all journal titles cumulatively across all institutions (17,442 vs. 16,929). Of the nine institutions, five saw decreases and four saw increases in the number of requests. The percentage change ranged from -39.0% (n = 2,121 vs. 1,294) to +65.4% (n = 243 vs. 402). The overall percentage decrease was largely influenced by a single institution, which had a 39.0% decrease. Removing this institution results in an overall 2.1% increase in cumulative borrowing requests. In 2019, the median number of requests across all nine institutions was 1,137, which grew to 1,294 in 2020.

Requested Journal Articles by Publication Year and Language

The publication year was unavailable for 26 requests. All others were coded into a binary of newer (published within five years of the request) and older (published more than five years before the request). A two-proportion Z-test comparing the proportion of older articles in 2019 to 2020 (47.5% vs. 52.6%), showed a statistically significant difference (Z = -9.49, Z = -9.491, p < 0.001). In 2019, 715 requests were in languages other than English, which increased to 813 requests in 2020. A two-proportion Z-test comparing the proportion (4.1% vs. 4.8%) found a statistically significant difference (Z = -3.17, p < 0.001).

Journal Article Lending Requests

Resource sharing activities involving journal articles, whether filled or unfilled, increased in 2020 (see Table 1). The mean article fill rate rose from 33.7% in 2019 to 46.2% in 2020.

	2019	2020	Percent Change
Filled Article Lending Requests	22,803	27,483	+20.5%
Unfilled Article Lending Requests	18,656	24,618	+32.0%
Lending Unique Journal Titles Filled	6,443	6,579	+2.1%
Lending Unique Journal Titles Unfilled	5,266	7,358	+39.7%

Many journals were requested only once: 3,182 in 2019 and 5,301 in 2020. In 2020, there were 5,293 journals with unfilled requests that had no unfilled requests in 2019. Also, 5,810 journals were requested in 2020 but not in 2019. (See Table 2)

There was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of non-English language lending requests (3.5% vs. 3.0%, p < 0.001) and non-English language unfilled lending requests (10.7% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001) between 2019 and 2020.

Journal Title	All Requests				Filled Requests
	Total Requests	2019	2020	Change (%)	2019		2020		Change in Fill Rates
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology	577	282	295	13 (4.6%)	144	51.1%	186	63.1%	+23.5%
Methods in Molecular Biology	305	154	151	-3 (-1.9%)	151	98.1%	151	100%	+2.0%
American Journal of Orthopedics	284	95	189	94 (98.9%)	38	40.0%	38	20.1%	-49.7%
Disability and Rehabilitation	251	102	149	47 (+31.5%)	83	81.4%	134	89.9%	+9.5%
Chinese Nursing Research = Hu Li Yan Jiu	231	181	50	-131 (-72.4%)	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	NA
Minerva Pediatrica	228	144	84	-60 (-71.4%)	4	2.8%	7	8.3%	+66.7%
Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry	226	104	122	18 (17.3%)	24	23.1%	50	41.0%	+77.6%
American Journal of Dentistry	224	44	180	136 (+75.6%)	29	65.9%	47	26.1%	-152.4%
Current Medicinal Chemistry	219	116	103	-13 (-12.6%)	69	59.5%	96	93.2%	+36.2%
Instructional Course Lectures	192	25	167	142 (+85%)	18	72.0%	57	34.1%	-110.9%
Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine	188	116	72	-44 (-61.1%)	104	89.7%	68	94.4%	+5.1%
L’Encephale	188	109	79	-30 (-38%)	5	4.6%	4	5.1%	+9.4%
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry	171	77	94	+17 (+18.1%)	36	46.8%	36	38.3%	-22.1%
General Dentistry	166	68	98	+30 (+30.6%)	23	33.8%	28	28.6%	-18.4%
Minerva Medica	159	103	56	-47 (-83.9%)	7	6.8%	1	1.8%	-280.6%
Neurology	158	66	92	26 (+28.3%)	32	48.5%	39	42.4%	-14.4%
Orthopedics	154	119	35	-84 (-240%)	14	11.8%	5	14.3%	+17.6%
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry	153	69	84	15 (17.9%)	33	47.8%	18	21.4%	-123.2%
Hepato-Gastroenterology	151	26	125	99 (79.2%)	19	73.1%	62	49.6%	-47.3%
African Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences	149	60	89	29 (32.6%)	27	45%	60	67.4%	+33.3%

Document Delivery Changes

The range of percentage change in DD was -51.9% to +71.2%, with three of the nine libraries reporting an increase in the number of filled requests from 2019 to 2020, and six reporting a decrease. The mean difference was 1.9%, with a large SD of 45.5%. Table 3 compares the top 20 journals requested in 2019 compared to 2020. Titles requested more frequently in 2020 include Current Pharmaceutical Design, Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, and Neurology, although several of the most requested titles were the same for both years.

Journal Title	All Requests
	Total Requests	2019	2020	Change (%)
Disability and Rehabilitation	100	56	44	-12 (-21.5%)
American Journal of Perinatology	87	45	42	-3 (-6.7%)
Current Pharmaceutical Design	87	32	55	+23 (71.9%)
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy	78	45	33	-12 (-26.7%)
Nature Reviews Disease Primers	72	31	41	+10 (32.3%)
Orthopedics	71	35	36	+1 (2.9%)
Journal of Drugs in Dermatology	62	40	22	-18 (-45%)
Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics of North America	58	33	25	-8 (-24.2%)
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety	57	32	25	-7 (-21.9%)
Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology	54	26	28	+2 (7.7%)
Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine	53	35	21	-14 (-40%)
Current Medical Research and Opinion	51	28	23	-5 (-17.9%)
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology	48	17	31	+17 (82.4%)
Trends in Cancer	48	30	18	-12 (-40%)
BMJ Case Reports	46	31	15	-16 (-51.6%)
Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine	42	33	9	-24 (-72.7%)
Neurology	41	10	31	+21 (210%)
Expert Review of Vaccines	39	32	7	-23 (-78.1%)
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics	38	36	2	-34 (-94.4%)
Urologia Internationalis	37	31	6	-25 (-80.6%)

Physical Monograph Borrowing and Lending

The percentage change in monograph lending from 2019 and 2020 for individual libraries ranged widely from a 98.3% decrease to an increase of 100%. Only two libraries had an increase; the average change was -44.7% (+/- 68.2% SD).

In terms of borrowing, the percentage change for monographs successfully borrowed in 2019 and 2020 for individual libraries ranged from a 93.3% decrease to a 10.5% increase, with an average (mean) change of -67.1% (+/- 31.7% SD). Focusing on four cancellation reasons (“Deadline,” “Offsite,” “E-resource licensing restrictions,” and “COVID-19”), the percentage change in these unfilled borrowing requests between 2019 and 2020 was highly variable. The overall mean was a 1,015.9% increase in unfilled, but with a very large SD of 2,421.9%. In two libraries, the 2019 unfilled rates were 0 or 1 and this very small denominator meant that even low unfilled rates in 2020 led to percentage changes of 1,700.0% and 7,300.0%. The remaining libraries ranged from a decrease in unfilled requests of 33.3% to an increase of 111.4%.

Unfilled Requests

There were 1,744 unfilled loan requests. Of these, 20.3% (n = 319) were published in 2019. The median publication year was 2016. Of the 1,605 unfilled requests with a document type, 18.4% (n = 295) were theses and dissertations. However, 287 of these were from a single large library serving all disciplines, not just health sciences. Of the records, 1,188 (68.1%) contained publisher information; 576 unique publishers’ imprints were represented (SupplData_PublishersUnfilledMonographs). Publishers with more than 10 unfilled items across multiple libraries included Springer (six libraries), Elsevier and Cambridge University Press (four libraries each), and Oxford University Press, Wiley, MIT Press, and University of Minnesota Press (two libraries each). Unfilled monographs requested by more than one library were infrequent, with just two titles seen across the nine participating libraries. Searching for online availability of these two titles in December 2023 found that one was available open access, and the other was available for institutional licensing and direct purchase.

Filled Requests

There were 20,924 successful monograph lending or borrowing requests across the nine participating libraries in 2019 and 2020. Most titles represented unique requests (lending n = 7,825, 96.1%; borrowing n = 12,214, 95.5%). Of the 12,783 borrowing requests, only 64 items were borrowed more than twice, representing 212 requests. Titles borrowed the most were popular reading materials. The most highly requested medical book was Handbook of Neurosurgery (four requests, four libraries). Methodological materials were also highly requested:

• Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers Q (five requests, two libraries)
• Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (four requests, two libraries)
• How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing (four requests, two libraries)
• Publication Manual of The American Psychological Association (four requests, two libraries)

Books related to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion were also in demand, such as:

• Eloquent Rage: A Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower (five requests, two libraries)
• White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism (five requests, three libraries).

Of the 8,141 loans, only 11 titles were loaned more than twice, representing 33 requests. Of the 11 titles loaned three times, only four were loaned by more than one institution:

• Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics (three requests, three libraries)
• Statistical Inference (three requests, three libraries)
• Introduction to Clinical Neurology (three requests, two libraries)
• Medical-Surgical Nursing: Concepts for Interprofessional Collaborative Care (three requests, two libraries)

Discussion

Comparison with DOCLINE Journal Request Analysis

The study compared the journal article request data to results from a previous study of DOCLINE data that included these nine libraries in addition to six other institutions where the number of requests decreased by 16.7% (8,175 vs. 6,716) (Bakker et al., 2023). However, although the same institutions were included in both studies, institutional identifiers were not available in the previous study due to restrictions in the data use agreement. It is possible that the same institutional outliers were present in the previous data set but could not be identified as institutional identifiers were not available. This paper’s findings emphasize the importance of institution level data to uncover nuance and variation in individual libraries.

Several local factors could potentially influence an institution’s request volume. For example, library closures may have influenced patron behavior, as might communication and outreach initiatives focused on interlibrary loan and resource sharing. ILLiad data may also be influenced by system workflows and preferred lenders. As all institutions included in this study worked in multiple systems, examining patterns across systems is necessary to have a more complete picture of resource sharing behaviors.

At an aggregate level, there was a significant increase in the proportion of articles older than five years between 2019 and 2020 (47.4% vs. 52.6%). This aligns with previous findings of DOCLINE data, which found that the proportion of older articles increased from 47.8% in 2019 to 55.2% in 2020 (Bakker et al., 2023). One explanation could be that library staff and patrons alike had limited or no access to their print collections in 2020 requiring them to turn to ILL to obtain copies of older articles that may not be available electronically. The proportion of total requests for material in languages other than English from the DOCLINE study in 2020 was 12% (Bakker et al., 2023); the proportion in this study was lower (4.8%) but still showed a significant increase from 2019 to 2020. This may have corresponded with an overall increase of articles written in languages other than English being published year over year, or it could have been a reflection of a small but proactive effort to include non-English language articles in scholarly research to increase diversity of thought and representation (“Scientific publishing has a language problem”, 2023).

Making Sense of Unfilled Reasons

One library reported that it could not fill the lending requests within the preferred delivery time frame in 2020, so it selected “Deadline” for the cancellation reason for lending requests. It could be explained by multiple factors such as library closing, short staffing, or limited accessibility to its collection. Two libraries reported that they canceled requests due to “Offsite”, which could mean that they could not access their collections. Lending cancellation reasons based on time or location such as “Deadline” or “Offsite” might have been a result of the pandemic.

Document Delivery is in the Eye of the Beholder

Three libraries showed an increase in DD requests during the pandemic, with the largest increase being 71%. This could be explained by users not having access to local print collections and therefore lacking the ability to borrow or scan materials themselves. However, the majority of library respondents did not report a marked increase in DD resources which could suggest more duplication between online and print holdings, users seeking resources available electronically, libraries purchasing resources electronically to fill the request, or transferring DD requests to ILL requests when library staff also lacked access to their local print collections.

The increase or decrease of DD activities between 2019 and 2020 might have depended on staff availability, accessibility to their physical collections, budget availability so libraries were able to purchase requested items instead of borrowing materials from other libraries, or other unique circumstances libraries faced during the pandemic. Understanding how other libraries responded to the challenges posed by COVID-19 restrictions could inform how readers prepare contingency plans related to disaster management.

Monograph Borrowing and Lending

Both unfilled and loaned monographs are of interest when considering what content could be prioritized for digital accessibility that permitted lending. Of greatest concern were the unfilled monographs, particularly the few that were needed by more than one institution. While collection development programs attempt to anticipate community needs, several of the unfilled monographs reflect specific events in 2020 that sparked more interest in and advocacy around the concepts of social justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion, which may not have been anticipated in the prior year. The fact that the books from 2019 were highly represented in the unfilled requests is not surprising, as they would have been new publications at that time. However, the reasons for non-availability were not the typical reasons for new book failed borrow requests, such as “In use.”

In addition to commercially produced monographs, there were many unfilled requests for dissertations and theses. The methods of digital access to these items where libraries may already have reproduction rights should receive attention, as these may be eligible for controlled digital lending. For example, most universities have institutional repositories that house their theses and dissertations, but there are limited ways to search across multiple repositories effectively. Institutions with repositories should consider mechanisms to make content more accessible, such as harvesting in OpenAIRE (https://www.openaire.eu/). As other institutions’ theses and dissertations are solely available in print and through ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, it will be important that universities request that ProQuest extend its subject-based participation in temporary open access to include this unique content from its university partners in future situations (ProQuest, 2020). Institutions should also examine workflows that improve discoverability of print theses and dissertations to ensure they are searchable in library catalogs or other publicly available search interfaces. However, there may also be restrictions to ILL access of these resources that should be reviewed and revised if possible.

Digital accessibility at an affordable cost directly from content vendors or permissions to lend born-digital content would reduce the dependence on lending library collection access. The data suggests, based on the wide variety of materials being requested only a single time, that in a situation where digital dissemination becomes essential due to constraints on sharing physical items, it would be more feasible to happen at the just-in-time, on demand level of controlled digital lending (CDL) from libraries rather than publishers prioritizing just-in-case digitization of their print content. CDL would still require library collection access and ILL staff efforts, but it would remove the time and complexity of pandemic-associated shipping delays. Given these increased staffing and shipping costs, the financial impact on libraries that remained open and experienced a substantial increase in lending warrants further investigation. Developing current, geographically specific cost estimates that incorporate the increased wages of personnel, changes in the speed of the technology for scanned items, and increased costs of packing materials and shipping for physical items would facilitate these studies. As shown in the data analysis of the borrowing cancellation reasons, one library filled its requests by directly purchasing items. This option may not be applicable for many libraries due to budget restrictions.

Implications

Given the population served by HSLs, which includes medical centers, delays and failures of HSLs to fill ILL and DD requests could have negative impacts on the rendering of clinical care. Similarly, training of future healthcare professionals depends on up-to-date and evidence-based information to build a foundation of knowledge for trainees. Delays in learning information or gaps in knowledge could hinder a student’s progress or, again, have a negative impact on clinical care decisions. Therefore, when viewed holistically, the results from all three phases of this research project can inform collection development, budgetary and staffing requirements, and efforts to standardize vocabulary across libraries. For example, understanding the requested content and the extent to which it was available to be shared via ILL and DD can help recommend collection development decisions and identify areas for growth within a local collection. Additionally, HSLs may need to consider alternatives for future services and be prepared to inform their administrations to negotiate the increase of ILL/DD budgets as needed, especially if the just-in-time, on demand level of CDL from libraries is more feasible and cost-effective than waiting for publishers to digitize backfiles or change lending terms in licensing agreements. Understanding the resources needed to fully support this service, including staff, should also be considered. Furthermore, both this study and the first survey identified the inconsistent communication methods around ILL/DD. Vocabulary and communication strategies can be improved, for example standardizing cancellation reasons would improve understanding and the ability to generate meaningful reports across institutions. Furthermore, workflows for preparing and communicating ILL/DD changes could also be improved to ensure all libraries adjust their practices proactively and consistently. Finally, in addition to informing collection development policies, these reported experiences can inform disaster management planning for critical library services.

Limitations

This study has several notable limitations. No hospital libraries participated in this study, and the results of academic libraries and academic medical center libraries may not be generalizable to other library settings. In addition, this study does not explain individual libraries’ experiences that affected the number of filled or unfilled requests, selected cancellation reasons, or differences between 2019 and 2020. This study looks at the reported data through the ILLiad program and accumulates institutional reports for the data analysis. As a result, some internal factors in each institution may not be represented in this study. Also, it does not address why and how libraries made changes during this time are not addressed.

Conclusion

The study compared the journal article request data across nine libraries and found that ILL and DD request volumes varied, although each library experienced a decrease in journal article borrowing, lending, and DD in 2020 compared to 2019. The lack of access to print collections influenced both the requesting behavior of library patrons and each library’s ability to satisfy those requests. This study also provides insight on book borrowing and lending not available from the previous investigation which reported primarily on requests for journal literature (Bakker et al., 2023). From the data on monographs loaned across the study period, where there was a predominance of single request titles unfilled across 2019 and 2020 (n = 1,631; 93.5%), there is potential for a deeper exploration of whether CDL would have been a potential solution. The direct purchase strategy depends on the right mix of library purchasing capacity, publisher single title availability, and user timing needs. It is hard to generalize the direct and indirect impact of the pandemic on DD service. Across the project’s three related investigations on the impact of the pandemic on resource sharing, the research team considered what other libraries or organizations may need for their own assessments. Libraries with similar questions could adapt the research protocol and survey questions regarding their own practices or resource sharing networks. Study findings could inform and enhance emergency preparedness planning, resource sharing, budgeting, evidence-based collection development, and possibly recommending content to copyright holders for digitization.

Data Availability Statement

Under the terms of the permission agreement (see Appendix 1), the authors are making the aggregated data available. The aggregated data for this study consists of three files: the list of journal titles borrowed and loaned with counts, the journal titles for document delivery with counts, and the monograph data counts by publisher/imprint. This data is available in TUScholarShare (https://doi.org/10.34944/8qrj-bd24).

Acknowledgements

No financial interest or benefit has arisen from the direct applications of this research. The authors thank Summer Steele of the Oregon Health & Science University Library for assistance in writing the ILLiad instructions and Priscilla Stephenson for assistance in gathering information, reviewing our draft article, and providing feedback on communicating the study’s findings accurately. The authors thank the staff at the participating libraries for providing data for this research and for their efforts to continue the provision of ILL services to our communities, both during COVID-19 and beyond.

References

Bakker, C. J., Koos, J. A., Hoogland, M. A., Rand, D., & Alpi, K. M. (2023). An exploration of journals requested by health sciences libraries through DOCLINE interlibrary loan during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 103. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2744

Connell, R. S., Wallis, L. C., & Corneaux, D. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on the use of academic library resources. Information Technology and Libraries, 40(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v40i2.12629

Creazzo, J., Bakker, C. J., Jo, P., Koos, J. A., & Alpi, K. M. (2021). Report from the field: Researching interlibrary loan/document delivery usage by health sciences libraries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 29(3-5), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/1072303X.2021.1936739

Frederick, J., & Wolff-Eisenberg, C. (2020). Academic library strategy and budgeting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ithaka S+R. https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.314507

Gillum, S. (2024). The Changing Face of Public Services in Health Sciences Libraries Post-Pandemic. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 43(2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2024.2330244

Huffman, J. (2020). Free kittens?: Usage of free library e-resources during the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 32(4), 322–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2020.1822005

Jackson, M. E. (2004). Assessing ILL/DD services: New cost-effective alternatives. Association of Research Libraries. https://archive.org/details/assessingillddse00jackrich/mode/2up

Jo, P., Clifton, S., & Malone, T. (2021, May 21–26). Analysis of print journal usage and adaptation of interlibrary loan/document delivery services in response to COVID-19 [Poster abstract]. 2021 Medical Library Association Annual Meeting, Virtual. https://jmla.mlanet.org/ojs/jmla/article/view/1438/1989

Juel, S. (n.d.). OCLC Reasons for No. Atlas Systems. https://support.atlas-sys.com/hc/en-us/articles/360011907433-OCLC-Reasons-For-N

Keshmiripour, S., Johnston, P., & Ahmadi, M. (2022). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on interlibrary loan and document delivery requests. Journal of Library Resource Sharing, 31(1-5), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/26915979.2022.2141412

Koos, J. A., Scheinfeld, L., & Larson, C. (2021). Pandemic-Proofing Your Library: Disaster Response and Lessons Learned from COVID-19. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 40(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2021.1873624

Lloyd, J. K., Alpi, K. M., Hoogland, M. A., Stephenson, P. L., & Meyer, E. (2022). Interlibrary loan and document delivery in North American health sciences libraries during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 110(3), 348-357. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1452

ProQuest. (2020, March 31). Coronavirus research database gives ProQuest users no-cost access to essential coverage of COVID-19 and more. https://about.proquest.com/en/news/2020/Coronavirus-Research-Database-Gives-ProQuest-Users-No-Cost-Access/

Scientific publishing has a language problem. (2023). Scientific publishing has a language problem. Nature Human Behavior, 7, 1019-1020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01679-6

Simard, M.-A., Priem, J., & Piwowar, H. A. (2020). How much does an interlibrary loan request cost? A review of the literature. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.04281

World Health Organization. (n.d.). WHO COVID-19 dashboard. https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/cases?n=c

Appendix 1 Library Data Sharing Permission Statement

Library data sharing permission statement can be accessed at the following URL: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/istl/index.php/istl/article/view/2829/2845

Appendix 2 ILLiad Reports Requested from Participating Libraries

Illiad reports requested from participating libraries can be accessed at the following URL: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/istl/index.php/istl/article/view/2829/2846

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.