LGBTQ+ Health Research Guides: A Cross-institutional Pilot Study of Usage Patterns
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: Multiple authors have recommended that health sciences libraries use research guides to promote LGBTQ+ health information, connect with their users and the community, and improve health equity. However, little is known about LGBTQ+ health guide usage patterns and whether such guides really meet the information needs of their users. Based on usage patterns from LGBTQ+ health research guides, we assessed the types of LGBTQ+ health information of greatest interest to health sciences library users and how, if appropriate, these guides might be revised to be more relevant to user needs. Methods: The data for LGBTQ+ health research guides of five health sciences libraries (three in the United States and two in Canada) were studied. Usage data were retrieved for a three year period (July 2018-June 2021). Two separate factors were chosen for analysis: monthly guide usage over time and the individual types of resources used. Monthly usage was studied by generating line graphs in Excel with trendlines to calculate overall guide usage trends. To determine the most sought-after types of resources by users, clicks for individual resources were categorized by type and focus using open coding in Google Sheets. Results: Overall guide usage was mixed, with some libraries’ guides trending upward over time and others downward. Analysis of the resource links showed that links to local and community health resources were among the most heavily clicked (64.11% of clicks), as were resources designed to help patients find healthcare providers and services (53.23%). Links to library-owned resources, such as books, journals, and databases, were generally clicked less (2.44%), as were links aimed at healthcare professionals (11.36%). Conclusions: The usage statistics for the guides were relatively low. However, the size of the LGBTQ+ community is relatively low compared to the general population and therefore LGBTQ+ health can be considered a category of minority health. We argue that the importance of providing quality LGBTQ+ health information outweighs any concerns of large-scale usage, and that providing such guides promotes health equity. The higher usage numbers for local resources supports the idea that guides are most useful when they link users to services and providers in their own communities. This suggests a best practice for librarians to focus on local resources and collaborations, and on consumer health resources, when creating and editing these guides.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».