Health Library Partnerships – an overview Lenny Rhine Health Science Center Libraries University of Florida May 2004

Definition: ‘library partnership program’ Involves two libraries in the medical or health related fields with one located in an industrialized country and the other in a developing or transitional one Fosters medical and health information access and exchange; can also include staff training Involves the industrialized country’s institution in supplying material and/or funding or channeling funding from a supporting agency

NLM Library Partnership Programs – 2000

INASP Health Library Partnership Database – April 2004

# of respondents per survey 24 of 24 - 2000 NLM Library Partnership Programs Project (18 ongoing in 2000) 13 of 19 – INASP Health Links Partnership Database (all are current) 10 ongoing programs responded to both surveys

Correlations from Two Surveys Approximately same number of active programs although the INASP partnerships had a broader geographic base (18 vs. 19) In both studies, photocopying was the highest ranked activity (67% vs. 100%) While the # of programs involved in staff training was similar (46% vs. 54%), the level of professional support was significantly higher in the INASP partnerships (33% vs. 100%)

Correlations Continued… The % of formal agreements was the same (38%) The total of informal and verbal agreements was more (46% and 57%) The level of regular and supplemental budgeting were the same (46%) but ‘outside sources’ funding was significantly higher for the INASP partnership (17% vs. 54%)

Correlations Continued… The key means of communication was ‘email’ (75% and 92%) with none of the other means of communication being greater than 50% Similarly, the key ‘factor for success’ noted was ‘email’ (63% and 92%) The INASP partnership noted staff interest (92%), WWW access (62%) and staff travel (54%) as being significant for ‘success’

Correlations Continued… For ‘factors thwarting success’, the only variable ranked significantly by both groups was ‘availability of equipment’ (70% and 54%) In the ‘wish to add’ category, the need for ‘permanent funding’ was ranked highly by both groups (70% and 54%) while the need for ‘improved WWW access’, ‘improved telecommunications’ and ‘more hardware and software’ were noted equally (31 to 45%)

Conclusions Email communication and a reliable level of telecommunications are essential for the success of a program (impact of information technology…) Staff training and interaction are key factors (includes utilization of information technology applications)

Conclusions Continued… Many of the programs are based on the commitment of one or two individuals in the industrialized country institution A significant number of projects do not have formal agreements or regular budgets Many of the ‘intangible factors’ were not analyzed in the two studies

Conclusions (personal) Develop a finite project and sustain it Try to institutionalize the program The individual and institutional rewards are infinite and not measurable

http://www.inasp.info/health/librarypartners/

ICS Committee for Health Sciences Library Partnerships Purpose: to match libraries in developed countries with those in developing countries Members: Jie Li (chair) – jli@jaguar1.usouthal.edu Marcus Banks - mab76@georgetown.edu Lenny Rhine – lenny@library.health.ufl.edu