Restricted: Increasing Access to the Reference Collection

  • Carla Epp University of Manitoba
  • Laura Hochheim University of Manitoba
Keywords: reference collection, deselection, weeding

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The objective of this project was to determine whether or not a hospital library reference collection is still necessary or justified. Two academic hospital libraries moved all reference books to the general collection to see whether increased access to these materials would increase their use. Description: All reference books were updated to circulating status and shelved in the circulating collection. As these items were used, statistics were gathered in the integrated library system (ALMA). Statistics were gathered from August 2014 to January 2015. Circulation statistics for equivalent periods prior to and during the project were compared to determine whether changing access to the collection increased use. Outcomes: Uses of the reference collection items doubled at Seven Oaks General Hospital (SOGH) and more than tripled at Victoria General Hospital (VGH). The percentage of reference titles used tripled at SOGH and doubled at VGH. Discussion: The change to circulating status significantly increased access to and use of the reference collection. This borrowing policy change for the reference collection will be recommended to the other hospital libraries within the University of Manitoba.

References

1. Bradford JT. What’s coming off the shelves? A reference use study analyzing print reference sources used in a university library. J Acad Librariansh. 2005 Nov;31(6):546–58. PMID: 19707860. doi: 10.1007/s10900-009-9182-4.
2. Colson J. Determining use of an academic library reference collection – report of a study. Ref User Serv Q. 2007 Dec;47(2):168–75.
3. Delwiche F, Bianchi N. Transformation of a print reference collection. Med Ref Serv Q. 2006 Jun;25(2):21–29. PMID: 16782664.
4. Husted J, Czechowski L. Rethinking the reference collection: Exploring benchmarks and E-book availability. Med Ref Serv Q. 2012 Jul;31(3):267–79. PMID: 22853301. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2012.698166.
5. King N. Nice vs. necessary: Reference collections in ARL member libraries. Ref Libr. 2012 Apr;53(2):138–55. doi: 10.1080/02763877.2011.607415.
6. Rix W. Reference collections and staff: Retaining relevance. Ref Libr. 2009 Jul;50(3):302–05. doi: 10.1080/02763870902947109.
7. Seale L, Chatterley T, Dorgan M. Evidence for removal of a reference collection in an academic health sciences library. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2014 Feb;9(1):59–61.
8. Boruff JT, Storie D. Mobile devices in medicine: A survey of how medical students, residents, and faculty use smartphones and other mobile devices to find information. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014 Jan;102(1):22–30. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.102.1.006.
9. Addison J, Whitcombe J, William Glover S. How doctors make use of online, point-of-care clinical decision support systems: A case study of UpToDate©. Health Info Libr J. 2013 Mar;30(1):13–22. doi: 10.1111/hir.12002.
Published
2015-08-01
How to Cite
Epp, C., & Hochheim, L. (2015). Restricted: Increasing Access to the Reference Collection. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal De L’Association Des Bibliothèques De La Santé Du Canada, 36(2), 59-62. https://doi.org/10.5596/c15-015
Section
Program Descriptions