Prevalence and impact of remote and hybrid work in academic health sciences libraries.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Journal of the Medical Library Association Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-07 DOI:10.5195/jmla.2024.1905
David Petersen, Matthew Covey, Janet Crum
{"title":"Prevalence and impact of remote and hybrid work in academic health sciences libraries.","authors":"David Petersen, Matthew Covey, Janet Crum","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2024.1905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study assesses the prevalence, usage, and impact of remote/hybrid work in academic health science libraries in 2022 and 2023. Due to differences in survey distribution, we focus primarily on the results of the second survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Researchers surveyed administrators at Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) member libraries in the United States in March 2022 and library staff at academic health sciences libraries in March 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The first survey received 71 responses that met inclusion criteria. Ninety-five percent of respondents indicated that remote/hybrid work was allowed in their libraries. Majorities indicated that remote/hybrid work had a positive impact on morale (86%), recruitment (53%) and retention (67%). The second survey received 383 responses that met inclusion criteria. 78% of respondents indicated they were allowed to work remotely, and majorities indicated remote/hybrid work positively impacted work/life balance (75%), morale/job satisfaction (69%), likelihood of staying at their current institution (64%), and productivity/overall effectiveness (58%). Respondents were less likely to accept a fully onsite (45% unlikely) or fully remote (20% unlikely) position than a hybrid one (1% unlikely). In a list of 9 factors associated with recruitment, retention, and job satisfaction, only salary and benefits ranked higher than remote/hybrid work.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Remote/hybrid work is common in academic health science libraries and highly valued by employees. While not without challenges, remote/hybrid work appears to be a valuable tool to support recruitment, retention, and job satisfaction of workers in academic health sciences libraries. The findings of this study can inform library decision makers about future use of remote/hybrid work.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11486086/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1905","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study assesses the prevalence, usage, and impact of remote/hybrid work in academic health science libraries in 2022 and 2023. Due to differences in survey distribution, we focus primarily on the results of the second survey.

Methods: Researchers surveyed administrators at Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) member libraries in the United States in March 2022 and library staff at academic health sciences libraries in March 2023.

Results: The first survey received 71 responses that met inclusion criteria. Ninety-five percent of respondents indicated that remote/hybrid work was allowed in their libraries. Majorities indicated that remote/hybrid work had a positive impact on morale (86%), recruitment (53%) and retention (67%). The second survey received 383 responses that met inclusion criteria. 78% of respondents indicated they were allowed to work remotely, and majorities indicated remote/hybrid work positively impacted work/life balance (75%), morale/job satisfaction (69%), likelihood of staying at their current institution (64%), and productivity/overall effectiveness (58%). Respondents were less likely to accept a fully onsite (45% unlikely) or fully remote (20% unlikely) position than a hybrid one (1% unlikely). In a list of 9 factors associated with recruitment, retention, and job satisfaction, only salary and benefits ranked higher than remote/hybrid work.

Conclusions: Remote/hybrid work is common in academic health science libraries and highly valued by employees. While not without challenges, remote/hybrid work appears to be a valuable tool to support recruitment, retention, and job satisfaction of workers in academic health sciences libraries. The findings of this study can inform library decision makers about future use of remote/hybrid work.

学术健康科学图书馆远程和混合工作的普遍性和影响。
目的:本研究评估了 2022 年和 2023 年学术健康科学图书馆远程/混合工作的普遍性、使用情况和影响。由于调查分布不同,我们主要关注第二次调查的结果:研究人员于 2022 年 3 月对美国学术健康科学图书馆协会(AAHSL)成员图书馆的管理人员进行了调查,并于 2023 年 3 月对学术健康科学图书馆的图书馆工作人员进行了调查:第一次调查收到了 71 份符合纳入标准的回复。95%的受访者表示他们的图书馆允许远程/混合工作。大多数受访者表示,远程/混合工作对士气(86%)、招聘(53%)和留任(67%)有积极影响。第二项调查共收到 383 份符合纳入标准的答复。78% 的受访者表示他们被允许远程工作,大多数受访者表示远程/混合工作对工作/生活平衡(75%)、士气/工作满意度(69%)、留在当前机构的可能性(64%)和生产率/整体效率(58%)产生了积极影响。与混合职位(1%不可能)相比,受访者不太可能接受完全现场(45%不可能)或完全远程(20%不可能)的职位。在与招聘、留任和工作满意度相关的 9 个因素中,只有薪酬和福利高于远程/混合工作:结论:远程/混合工作在学术健康科学图书馆很常见,并受到员工的高度重视。虽然远程/混合工作并非没有挑战,但它似乎是支持学术健康科学图书馆招聘、留住员工和提高员工工作满意度的一个有价值的工具。本研究的结果可为图书馆决策者提供有关未来使用远程/混合工作的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信