Connecting the Libraries and Athletics through Instruction and Outreach.

This column describes the approaches taken by librarians and staff at James Madison University (JMU) Libraries & Educational Technologies (LET) to extend library support to university athletics. The model resembles that used for outreach to academic programs and was first adapted to the semi-clinical, nonacademic Strength & Conditioning Department, then to JMU Athletics as a whole. Librarians offered targeted instructional sessions, orientations, and asynchronous learning modules embedded in the learning management system. This new relationship has provided an opportunity for broader collaboration, increasing LET's presence across campus.

An evaluation of pharmacogenomic information provided by five common drug information resources.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated whether pharmacogenomic information contained in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved package inserts of sixty-five drugs was present in five drug information resources. METHODS: The study searched for biomarkers from the FDA package inserts in 5 drug information sources: American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information (AHFS), Facts & Comparisons 4.0 (Facts), ePocrates Online Free (ePocrates Free), Lexicomp Online (Lexicomp), and Micromedex 2.0. Each resource had the opportunity to present biomarker information for 65 drugs, a total of 325 opportunities. A binary system was used to indicate presence or absence of the biomarker information. A sub-analysis was performed on the 13 most frequently prescribed drugs in the United States. RESULTS: Package insert biomarker information was available, on average, for 81.5% of the 65 FDA-listed drugs in 2011. Percent availability for the individual resources was: Lexicomp, 95.3%; Micromedex 2.0, 92.3%; Facts, 76.9%; AHFS, 75.3%; and ePocrates Free, 67.7%. The sub-analysis of the 13 top drugs showed Lexicomp and Micromedex 2.0 had the most mentions, 92.3%; ePocrates Free had the least, 53.8%. CONCLUSION: The strongest resource for pharmacogenomic information was Lexicomp. The gap between Lexicomp and ePocrates Free is concerning. Clinicians would miss pharmacogenomic information 6.6 times more often in ePocrates Free than in Lexicomp. IMPLICATIONS: Health sciences librarians should be aware of the variation in biomarker availability when recommending drug resources for licensing and use. Librarians can also use this study to encourage publishers to include pharmacogenomics information from the package insert as a minimum standard.

Development of the research lifecycle model for library services.

QUESTION: Can the niche services of individual librarians across multiple libraries be developed into a suite of standard services available to all scientists that support the entire research lifecycle? SETTING: Services at a large, research-intensive state university campus are described. METHOD: Initial data were collected via concept mapping by librarians. Additional data were collected at conferences and meetings through interactive poster presentations. MAIN RESULTS: Services of interest to scientists for each of the stages in the research lifecycle were developed by the team to reflect the wide range of strengths of team members in aggregate. CONCLUSION: Input from researchers was the most effective tool for developing the model. A flexible research lifecycle model can be developed to match the needs of different service groups and the skills of different librarians.

A preliminary analysis of library holdings as compared to the basic resources for pharmacy education list.

The catalogs of 11 university libraries were analyzed against the Basic Resources for Pharmaceutical Education (BRPE) to measure the percent coverage of the core total list as well as the core sublist. There is no clear trend in this data to link school age, size, or rank with percentage of coverage of the total list or the "First Purchase" core list when treated as independent variables. Approximately half of the schools have significantly higher percentages of core titles than statistically expected. Based on this data, it is difficult to predict what percentage of titles on the BRPE a library will contain.

Development of targeted online modules for recurring reference questions.

When students are given assignments with specific information needs, they may turn to the library for help. The UNC Health Sciences Library developed three short online modules to teach first-year pharmacy students how to find early/animal studies, mechanism of action information, and specific study types in an effort to lessen demand on the reference desk. The modules filled two goals: to free up time that had been spent on three common low-level questions and to provide a pedagogically sound online tool to teach students how to find answers to these three questions. The modules were created using Adobe Captivate. Developing and promoting the modules took three hours of the pharmacy librarian's time compared with nearly 23 hours spent answering individual questions via e-mail, in consultations, and at the reference desk before the modules were introduced. After introducing the modules, only one student asked for help from the library compared to more than 60 who viewed the online modules at least once.

"Hidden treasures": librarian office hours for three health sciences schools.

The changing needs of students and faculty have prompted UNC Chapel Hill's Health Sciences Library to reconsider the delivery of library services. Several years of outreach and office hours have yielded an array of "hidden treasures," or secondary outcomes, of both online and in-person office hours. The online office hours are tailored for the Schools of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Public Health. This article examines the benefits that go beyond simple consultation statistics and encompass more qualitative aspects of success resulting from increased outreach, goodwill, and stronger library-departmental partnerships.

Vignettes: Diverse library staff offering diverse bioinformatics services.

OBJECTIVES: The paper gives examples of the bioinformatics services provided in a variety of different libraries by librarians with a broad range of educational background and training. METHODS: Two investigators sent an email inquiry to attendees of the "National Center for Biotechnology Information's (NCBI) Introduction to Molecular Biology Information Resources" or "NCBI Advanced Workshop for Bioinformatics Information Specialists (NAWBIS)" courses. The thirty-five-item questionnaire addressed areas such as educational background, library setting, types and numbers of users served, and bioinformatics training and support services provided. Answers were compiled into program vignettes. DISCUSSION: The bioinformatics support services addressed in the paper are based in libraries with academic and clinical settings. Services have been established through different means: in collaboration with biology faculty as part of formal courses, through teaching workshops in the library, through one-on-one consultations, and by other methods. Librarians with backgrounds from art history to doctoral degrees in genetics have worked to establish these programs. CONCLUSION: Successful bioinformatics support programs can be established in libraries in a variety of different settings and by staff with a variety of different backgrounds and approaches.

Developing an interdisciplinary collaboration center in an academic Health Sciences Library.

This article describes the evolution of the Health Sciences Library's plans for an interdisciplinary, technology-enhanced collaboration center, from a technology-driven space to one with a vision of support for peer-to-peer learning and research. The center offers an exciting opportunity to be an essential partner in collaborative and interdisciplinary programs such as the new Carolina Center for Exploratory Genetic Analysis. The Library is a centrally located and neutral place, which helps minimize geographical and territorial obstacles to effective collaboration. The collaboration center raises the Library's visibility and allows staff to demonstrate the value of knowledge resources, services, technology expertise, infrastructure, and facilities for group study and collaboration.

Building a bioinformatics community of practice through library education programs.

This paper addresses the following questions:What makes the community of practice concept an intriguing framework for developing library services for bioinformatics? What is the campus context and setting? What has been the Health Sciences Library's role in bioinformatics at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill? What are the Health Sciences Library's goals? What services are currently offered? How will these services be evaluated and developed? How can libraries demonstrate their value? Providing library services for an emerging community such as bioinformatics and computational biology presents special challenges for libraries including understanding needs, defining and communicating the library's role, building relationships within the community, preparing staff, and securing funding. Like many academic health sciences libraries, the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill Health Sciences Library is addressing these challenges in the context of its overall mission and goals.