Web 2.0 and Libraries - reference services

Today, I received a posting from the Medical Libraries Discussion List about Electronic Reference Services and why they are being used less than expected. The article posts a link to Digital Reference Public Archives at http://digref.org/archive/
Click on "Current" and then on "Last Page", to read an interesting discussion about the use of Web 2.0 in library reference services.

Reference:
Dillard, D. Medical Libraries Discussion List (medlib-l@list.uvm.edu)

Medical Librarian

For anyone interested in medical librarianship, the Medical Library Association website is a wealth of information. Resources include educational material, job lists, reference texts, health literacy promotion articles, resources for health consumers, guides to evaluating health information on the web, lists of the most useful health websites, professional development materials, information on networking opportunities, upcoming conferences, and promotional material for the hospital library.

The Medical Library Association (MLA) website is: http://www.mlanet.org

History of Medicine and Advertising

The Medical Libraries Discussion List (medlib-l@list.uvm.edu) posted a unique database on advertising and medicine. It contains copies of advertisements of medications dating back to 1910 and through to the 1950s. The website is called "Medicine and Madison Avenue" by The National Humanities Center and the John W. Hartman Center for Sales, Advertising and Marketing History. The database presents images of advertisements from newspapers and magazines covering a wide variety of medical complaints.

Check it out at:
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/mma/

Reference:
Reynolds, P. Medical Libraries Discussion List (medlib-l@list.uvm.edu). November 12, 2007.

"Disease mongering"

One interesting role for a health information specialist is that of combating "disease mongering". "Disease mongering" is a pharmaceutical industry backed marketing strategy that exploits people’s primal fear of death, decay and disease through “designed” information and education directed at consumers and health care providers (Moynihan & Cassels, 2005). Moynihan and Henry define disease mongering as “…the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows the markets for those who sell and deliver treatments” (2006, p.1).

Disease mongering could be divided into three different categories (Moynihan & Cassels, 2005). The first involves the transformation of some of life’s normal processes into disease states. Conditions formally thought to be a natural part of aging now become disorders necessitating medication. Pharmaceutical companies design drugs which they claim will increase the enjoyment of life. The second category of disease mongering involves the re-classification of mild symptoms to become serious diseases or the creation of new medical diseases. Examples include allergic rhinitis, adult attention deficit disorder, restless legs syndrome, social anxiety disorder and pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder.The third category of disease mongering is the promotion of risk factors to disease states. Examples include osteoporosis, high cholesterol and high blood pressure.

The negative effects of disease mongering are many and relate to the health and the economy of both individuals and society as a whole. Patients are exposed to unnecessary testing and treatment which may in itself lead to ill effects or even death. The health care system is subject to increased costs for tests, diagnoses and treatments of limited or no value.

Health information specialists can fill the gap in the health care system which has allowed disease mongering to grow, by educating physicians, other health care providers, teachers and consumers about disease mongering and providing balanced information.

Moynihan, R., & Cassels, A. (2005). Selling sickness: How the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies are turning us all into patients. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Greystone Books.
Moynihan, R., & Henry, D. (2006). The fight against disease mongering: Generating knowledge for action. PLoS Med 2006 3(4):e191. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/3/4/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0030191-S.pdf

Open Source Software Evaluation - Koha

The implementation of Koha open source software has many advantages for the library. However, research would need to be conducted to evaluate the total cost of ownership. The implementation cost and ongoing cost of technological support for Koha must be taken into consideration. One also must remember that a service/support company may go out of business and therefore the Open Source Community must be strong enough to support it on its own.

October is Canadian Library Month

While reading my local newspaper (The Barrie Advance) on the weekend, I was pleased to observe one and a half pages totally dedicated to libraries. Some comments I found particularly interesting were "...libraries across the country celebrate their commitment to enhancing the quality of life for all Canadians" (Barrie Advance, Friday, Oct.19, 2007, p.8).
"Libraries are where new Canadians study for citizenship tests, parents learn songs and stories, students learn critical thinking and evaluation skills, businesses research the competition, avid readers pick up the latest bestsellers, and children learn to love reading...They are networked partners with organizations and government, and provide information and services to meet community needs both locally and as gateways to libraries of the world" (Barrie Advance, Friday, Oct.19, 2007, p.8).
The authors stress the importance of the library as the centre of the community; it serves as a gateway to other sources of information but also in itself is vital to the community.

Comments on "Do libraries matter? The rise of Library 2.0" A white paper by Chad, K. and Miller, P. (2005)

Yes, yes, yes - Libraries do matter!

Chad and Miller’s view of Library 2.0 is an interesting one but presents a number of issues. Firstly, there are questions raised by many professionals in the library field as to the actual definition of Library 2.0 (Crawford, W.). Many librarians believe that the concept is not new and describes a philosophy which has been part of libraries for the past one hundred years. Secondly, the concept of Chad and Miller’s Library 2.0 cannot be universally applied to all libraries. Each library community is unique and must be treated as such. The focus of each library should be on the needs of its community - the library users and available infrastructure. It is also important to consider that Chad and Miller work for the business Talis and therefore would profit financially from the adaptation of their Library 2.0 technology.