8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mobile-phone dispatch of laypersons for CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

          Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed by bystanders is associated with increased survival rates among persons with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We investigated whether rates of bystander-initiated CPR could be increased with the use of a mobile-phone positioning system that could instantly locate mobile-phone users and dispatch lay volunteers who were trained in CPR to a patient nearby with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Efficacy of a Web-Based, Crowdsourced Peer-To-Peer Cognitive Reappraisal Platform for Depression: Randomized Controlled Trial

            Background Self-guided, Web-based interventions for depression show promising results but suffer from high attrition and low user engagement. Online peer support networks can be highly engaging, but they show mixed results and lack evidence-based content. Objective Our aim was to introduce and evaluate a novel Web-based, peer-to-peer cognitive reappraisal platform designed to promote evidence-based techniques, with the hypotheses that (1) repeated use of the platform increases reappraisal and reduces depression and (2) that the social, crowdsourced interactions enhance engagement. Methods Participants aged 18-35 were recruited online and were randomly assigned to the treatment group, “Panoply” (n=84), or an active control group, online expressive writing (n=82). Both are fully automated Web-based platforms. Participants were asked to use their assigned platform for a minimum of 25 minutes per week for 3 weeks. Both platforms involved posting descriptions of stressful thoughts and situations. Participants on the Panoply platform additionally received crowdsourced reappraisal support immediately after submitting a post (median response time=9 minutes). Panoply participants could also practice reappraising stressful situations submitted by other users. Online questionnaires administered at baseline and 3 weeks assessed depression symptoms, reappraisal, and perseverative thinking. Engagement was assessed through self-report measures, session data, and activity levels. Results The Panoply platform produced significant improvements from pre to post for depression (P=.001), reappraisal (P<.001), and perseverative thinking (P<.001). The expressive writing platform yielded significant pre to post improvements for depression (P=.02) and perseverative thinking (P<.001), but not reappraisal (P=.45). The two groups did not diverge significantly at post-test on measures of depression or perseverative thinking, though Panoply users had significantly higher reappraisal scores (P=.02) than expressive writing. We also found significant group by treatment interactions. Individuals with elevated depression symptoms showed greater comparative benefit from Panoply for depression (P=.02) and perseverative thinking (P=.008). Individuals with baseline reappraisal deficits showed greater comparative benefit from Panoply for depression (P=.002) and perseverative thinking (P=.002). Changes in reappraisal mediated the effects of Panoply, but not the expressive writing platform, for both outcomes of depression (ab=-1.04, SE 0.58, 95% CI -2.67 to -.12) and perseverative thinking (ab=-1.02, SE 0.61, 95% CI -2.88 to -.20). Dropout rates were similar for the two platforms; however, Panoply yielded significantly more usage activity (P<.001) and significantly greater user experience scores (P<.001). Conclusions Panoply engaged its users and was especially helpful for depressed individuals and for those who might ordinarily underutilize reappraisal techniques. Further investigation is needed to examine the long-term effects of such a platform and whether the benefits generalize to a more diverse population of users. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02302248; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02302248 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Wtkj6CXU).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Crowdsourcing in medical research: concepts and applications

              Crowdsourcing shifts medical research from a closed environment to an open collaboration between the public and researchers. We define crowdsourcing as an approach to problem solving which involves an organization having a large group attempt to solve a problem or part of a problem, then sharing solutions. Crowdsourcing allows large groups of individuals to participate in medical research through innovation challenges, hackathons, and related activities. The purpose of this literature review is to examine the definition, concepts, and applications of crowdsourcing in medicine. This multi-disciplinary review defines crowdsourcing for medicine, identifies conceptual antecedents (collective intelligence and open source models), and explores implications of the approach. Several critiques of crowdsourcing are also examined. Although several crowdsourcing definitions exist, there are two essential elements: (1) having a large group of individuals, including those with skills and those without skills, propose potential solutions; (2) sharing solutions through implementation or open access materials. The public can be a central force in contributing to formative, pre-clinical, and clinical research. A growing evidence base suggests that crowdsourcing in medicine can result in high-quality outcomes, broad community engagement, and more open science.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                wangcheng090705@gmail.com
                larryhan320@gmail.com
                gabriellahstein@gmail.com
                suzanne.day@med.unc.edu
                cedric.h.bien@gmail.com
                amathews@email.unc.edu
                doctorjasonong@gmail.com
                1175366198@qq.com
                shufang@seshglobal.org
                jennifer_walker@unc.edu
                chour@ohsu.edu
                amylee@live.unc.edu
                achen1818@gmail.com
                barry_bayus@unc.edu
                jdtucker@med.unc.edu
                Journal
                Infect Dis Poverty
                Infect Dis Poverty
                Infectious Diseases of Poverty
                BioMed Central (London )
                2095-5162
                2049-9957
                20 January 2020
                20 January 2020
                2020
                : 9
                : 8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8877 7471, GRID grid.284723.8, Dermatology Hospital of Southern Medical University, ; Guangzhou, China
                [2 ]Guangdong Provincial Center for Skin Diseases and Sexually Transmitted Infection Control, Guangzhou, China
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7558, GRID grid.189504.1, Department of Biostatistics, , Harvard Chan School of Public Health, ; Boston, MA USA
                [4 ]Social Entrepreneurship to Spur Health, Guangzhou, China
                [5 ]ISNI 0000000122483208, GRID grid.10698.36, Institute of Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ; Chapel Hill, USA
                [6 ]ISNI 0000000122483208, GRID grid.10698.36, Department of Social Medicine, , University of North Carolina School of Medicine, ; Chapel Hill, USA
                [7 ]University of North Carolina Project-China, Guangzhou, China
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0425 469X, GRID grid.8991.9, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, ; London, UK
                [9 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1034 1720, GRID grid.410711.2, Health Sciences Library, , University of North Carolina, ; Chapel Hill, USA
                [10 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9758 5690, GRID grid.5288.7, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, , Oregon Health & Sciences University, ; Portland, USA
                [11 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9758 5690, GRID grid.5288.7, Department of Medicine, , Oregon Health & Sciences University, ; Portland, USA
                [12 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0378 8294, GRID grid.62560.37, Department of Orthopaedics, , Brigham and Women’s Hospital, ; Boston, USA
                [13 ]ISNI 0000000122483208, GRID grid.10698.36, Kenan-Flagler School of Business, , University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ; Chapel Hill, USA
                Article
                622
                10.1186/s40249-020-0622-9
                6971908
                31959234
                87fdc39f-a51a-4075-a4c0-e5e738b6164b
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 17 May 2019
                : 7 January 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: The World Health Organization’s Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases
                Categories
                Scoping Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                crowdsourcing,innovation,challenge contest,systematic review,medicine,health

                Comments

                Comment on this article