Dataset Information

Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Crowdsourcing is used increasingly in health and medical research. Crowdsourcing is the process of aggregating crowd wisdom to solve a problem. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize quantitative evidence on crowdsourcing to improve health. METHODS:We followed Cochrane systematic review guidance and systematically searched seven databases up to September 4th 2019. Studies were included if they reported on crowdsourcing and related to health or medicine. Studies were excluded if recruitment was the only use of crowdsourcing. We determined the level of evidence associated with review findings using the GRADE approach. RESULTS:We screened 3508 citations, accessed 362 articles, and included 188 studies. Ninety-six studies examined effectiveness, 127 examined feasibility, and 37 examined cost. The most common purposes were to evaluate surgical skills (17 studies), to create sexual health messages (seven studies), and to provide layperson cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) out-of-hospital (six studies). Seventeen observational studies used crowdsourcing to evaluate surgical skills, finding that crowdsourcing evaluation was as effective as expert evaluation (low quality). Four studies used a challenge contest to solicit human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing promotion materials and increase HIV testing rates (moderate quality), and two of the four studies found this approach saved money. Three studies suggested that an interactive technology system increased rates of layperson initiated CPR out-of-hospital (moderate quality). However, studies analyzing crowdsourcing to evaluate surgical skills and layperson-initiated CPR were only from high-income countries. Five studies examined crowdsourcing to inform artificial intelligence projects, most often related to annotation of medical data. Crowdsourcing was evaluated using different outcomes, limiting the extent to which studies could be pooled. CONCLUSIONS:Crowdsourcing has been used to improve health in many settings. Although crowdsourcing is effective at improving behavioral outcomes, more research is needed to understand effects on clinical outcomes and costs. More research is needed on crowdsourcing as a tool to develop artificial intelligence systems in medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO: CRD42017052835. December 27, 2016.

SUBMITTER: Wang C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6971908 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review.

Wang Cheng C Han Larry L Stein Gabriella G Day Suzanne S Bien-Gund Cedric C Mathews Allison A Ong Jason J JJ Zhao Pei-Zhen PZ Wei Shu-Fang SF Walker Jennifer J Chou Roger R Lee Amy A Chen Angela A Bayus Barry B Tucker Joseph D JD

Infectious diseases of poverty 20200120 1

<h4>Background</h4>Crowdsourcing is used increasingly in health and medical research. Crowdsourcing is the process of aggregating crowd wisdom to solve a problem. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize quantitative evidence on crowdsourcing to improve health.<h4>Methods</h4>We followed Cochrane systematic review guidance and systematically searched seven databases up to September 4th 2019. Studies were included if they reported on crowdsourcing and related to health or medicine. S ...[more]

PMID: 31959234

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCrowdsourcing involves obtaining ideas, needed services, or content by soliciting Web-based contributions from a crowd. The 4 types of crowdsourced tasks (problem solving, data processing, surveillance or monitoring, and surveying) can be applied in the 3 categories of health (promotion, research, and care).ObjectiveThis study aimed to map the different applications of crowdsourcing in health to assess the fields of health that are using crowdsourcing and the crowdsourced tasks used. We also describe the logistics of crowdsourcing and the characteristics of crowd workers.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for available reports from inception to March 30, 2016, with no restriction on language or publication status.ResultsWe identified 202 relevant studies that used crowdsourcing, including 9 randomized controlled trials, of which only one had posted results at ClinicalTrials.gov. Crowdsourcing was used in health promotion (91/202, 45.0%), research (73/202, 36.1%), and care (38/202, 18.8%). The 4 most frequent areas of application were public health (67/202, 33.2%), psychiatry (32/202, 15.8%), surgery (22/202, 10.9%), and oncology (14/202, 6.9%). Half of the reports (99/202, 49.0%) referred to data processing, 34.6% (70/202) referred to surveying, 10.4% (21/202) referred to surveillance or monitoring, and 5.9% (12/202) referred to problem-solving. Labor market platforms (eg, Amazon Mechanical Turk) were used in most studies (190/202, 94%). The crowd workers' characteristics were poorly reported, and crowdsourcing logistics were missing from two-thirds of the reports. When reported, the median size of the crowd was 424 (first and third quartiles: 167-802); crowd workers' median age was 34 years (32-36). Crowd workers were mainly recruited nationally, particularly in the United States. For many studies (58.9%, 119/202), previous experience in crowdsourcing was required, and passing a qualification test or training was seldom needed (11.9% of studies; 24/202). For half of the studies, monetary incentives were mentioned, with mainly less than US $1 to perform the task. The time needed to perform the task was mostly less than 10 min (58.9% of studies; 119/202). Data quality validation was used in 54/202 studies (26.7%), mainly by attention check questions or by replicating the task with several crowd workers.ConclusionsThe use of crowdsourcing, which allows access to a large pool of participants as well as saving time in data collection, lowering costs, and speeding up innovations, is increasing in health promotion, research, and care. However, the description of crowdsourcing logistics and crowd workers' characteristics is frequently missing in study reports and needs to be precisely reported to better interpret the study findings and replicate them.

Project description:PhenomenonResearch literacy remains important for equipping clinicians with the analytical skills to tackle an ever-evolving medical landscape and maintain an evidence-based approach when treating patients. While the role of research in medical education has been justified and established, the nuances involving modes of instruction and relevant outcomes for students have yet to be analyzed. Institutions acknowledge an increasing need to dedicate time and resources towards educating medical undergraduates on research but have individually implemented different pedagogies over differing lengths of time.ApproachWhile individual studies have evaluated the efficacy of these curricula, the evaluations of educational methods and curriculum design have not been reviewed systematically. This study thereby aims to perform a systematic review of studies incorporating research into the undergraduate medical curriculum, to provide insights on various pedagogies utilized to educate medical students on research.FindingsStudies predominantly described two major components of research curricula-(1) imparting basic research skills and the (2) longitudinal application of research skills. Studies were assessed according to the 4-level Kirkpatrick model for evaluation. Programs that spanned minimally an academic year had the greatest proportion of level 3 outcomes (50%). One study observed a level 4 outcome by assessing the post-intervention effects on participants. Studies primarily highlighted a shortage of time (53%), resulting in inadequate coverage of content.InsightsThis study highlighted the value in long-term programs that support students in acquiring research skills, by providing appropriate mentors, resources, and guidance to facilitate their learning. The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition underscored the importance of tailoring educational interventions to allow students with varying experience to develop their skills. There is still room for further investigation of multiple factors such as duration of intervention, student voluntariness, and participants' prior research experience. Nevertheless, it stands that mentoring is a crucial aspect of curricula that has allowed studies to achieve level 3 Kirkpatrick outcomes and engender enduring changes in students.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01183-w.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Over the past decade, there has been an increase in reports of health research from Palestine, but no assessment of their quality. We have assessed the quality of reports of Palestinian health research and factors associated with it. DESIGN:This is a systematic review. INCLUSION CRITERIA:We searched Medline and Scopus for reports of original research relevant to human health or healthcare authored by researchers affiliated with Palestinian institutions and published between January 2000 and August 2015 inclusive. OUTCOMES:We used international guidelines to assess report quality, classifying as adequate those with ?50% of items completely addressed. RESULTS:Of 2383 reports identified, 497 met our inclusion criteria. Just over half (264; 55%) of these were published after 2010. 354 (71%) of first authors were affiliated with Palestinian institutions; 261 (53%) reports had coauthors from outside Palestine. The majority of the reports in our study were inadequately reported (342; 69%), and none had adequately reported all items. Of 439 observational studies, 11 (2.5%) reports provided adequate descriptions of eligibility criteria and selection procedures; 35 (8%) reported efforts to address potential sources of bias; 50 (11.4%) reported the basis for the study sample size; and funding sources were mentioned in 74 reports (17%). Higher reporting quality was associated with international affiliation of the first author (prevalence ratio (PR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1)), international collaboration (PR 2.9 (95% CI 1.7 to 5.0)), international funding (PR 1.9 (95% CI1.5 to 2.5)), publication after 2005 (PR 3.9 (95% CI 1.8 to 8.5)) and four or more coauthors (PR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.1)). CONCLUSION:Although the quality of reports of Palestinian research has improved in recent years, it remains well below an acceptable standard. International reporting guidelines should be used to guide research design and improve the quality of reports of research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:The systematic review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registery (registration number: CRD42015027553).

Dataset Information

Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review.

Publications

Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets