Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026
Board exam preparation resource trends in academic health sciences libraries serving colleges of osteopathic medicine programs.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Muellenbach Joanne, Robinson Kyle, Chen Hsin-Liang, Bright Harold S, Fitterling Lori
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The study seeks to identify the board exam preparation (prep) resources made available to medical students by academic health sciences libraries and other departments within U.S. colleges of osteopathic medicine (COM) programs, and the extent to which these resources are utilized by medical students and educators.
METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases. In phase one, forty-two COM library directors were invited to complete a survey regarding their usage, funding, and access models for available board prep resources. In phase two, semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom to explore the library's role in providing access to these resources.
RESULTS: In phase one, thirty-five out of a possible forty-two survey respondents shared the top board exam prep resources to which their COM programs subscribed, as well as the top library resources that included board prep elements. In phase two, thirteen directors participated in Zoom interviews, which were recorded and transcribed to identify key trends in funding responsibility, resource selection, and librarian involvement. It was revealed that governance matters, digital format rules, partnerships drive impact, telling the data story is key, and one-stop guidance works.
CONCLUSION: The two-phase study provided a comprehensive review of the specific resources that academic health sciences libraries and other departments offer for board prep within COM programs. Through analyses of survey and semi-structured interview data, this study identifies trends in resource availability and use, informing strategic planning for libraries, medical school administration, and library science education, ultimately enhancing student outcomes.
METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases. In phase one, forty-two COM library directors were invited to complete a survey regarding their usage, funding, and access models for available board prep resources. In phase two, semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom to explore the library's role in providing access to these resources.
RESULTS: In phase one, thirty-five out of a possible forty-two survey respondents shared the top board exam prep resources to which their COM programs subscribed, as well as the top library resources that included board prep elements. In phase two, thirteen directors participated in Zoom interviews, which were recorded and transcribed to identify key trends in funding responsibility, resource selection, and librarian involvement. It was revealed that governance matters, digital format rules, partnerships drive impact, telling the data story is key, and one-stop guidance works.
CONCLUSION: The two-phase study provided a comprehensive review of the specific resources that academic health sciences libraries and other departments offer for board prep within COM programs. Through analyses of survey and semi-structured interview data, this study identifies trends in resource availability and use, informing strategic planning for libraries, medical school administration, and library science education, ultimately enhancing student outcomes.