Scoping review results presented at Medicine 2.0'13 in London

1. Wikis
and
Collabora&ve
Wri&ng
Applica&ons
in
Healthcare:
a
Scoping
Review
Titre du document
Tom
H
van
de
Belt
(1),
Patrick
Michel
Archambault
(2),
Francisco
J
Grajales
III
(3),
Marjan
J
Faber
(2),
Craig
E
Kuziemsky
(4),
Susie
Gagnon
(5),
Andrea
Bilodeau
(5),
Simon
Rioux
(5),
Karine
Aubin
Auteurs (2),
Julien
Poitras
(2),
Jan
A.M.
Kremer
(1),
Gunther
Eysenbach
(9),
France
Légaré
(10)
(6),
Irving
Gold
(7),
Marie-­‐Pierre
Gagnon
(6),
Alexis
Turgeon
(8),
Cynthia
Fournier
(2),
Mathieu
Émond
(1) Radboud
University
Nijmegen
Medical
Centre,
Nijmegen,
Netherlands;
(2)
Faculté
de
médecine,
Université
Laval,
Quebec,
Canada;
(3)
Faculty
of
Medicine,
University
of
Bri^sh
Columbia,
Vancouver,
Canada;
(4)
Telfer
School
of
Management,
University
of
Oaawa,
Oaawa,
Canada;
(5)
Centre
de
santé
et
de
services
sociaux
Alphonse-­‐Desjardins
(CHAU
de
Lévis),
Lévis,
Canada;
(6)
Faculté
des
sciences
infirmières,
Université
Laval,
Québec,
Canada;
(7)
Associa^on
of
Facul^es
of
Medicine
of
Canada,
Oaawa,
Canada;
(8)
Division
de
soins
intensifs,
Département
d'anesthésiologie,
Université
Laval,
Québec,
QC,
Canada;
(9)
Centre
for
Global
eHealth
Innova^on,
University
of
Toronto;
(10)
Canada
Research
Chair
in
Implementa^on
of
Shared
Decision
Making
in
Primary
Care,
Québec,
Canada
Ø Figure
1.
Flow
Chart
Background
Ø Collabora&ve
wri&ng
applica&ons
(CWAs)
have
the
poten&al
to
empower
mul&ple
stakeholders
to
disseminate
and
apply
knowledge
in
prac&ce.
Ø The
rapid
rise
in
the
use
of
CWAs
has
created
the
need
for
a
synthesis
of
the
evidence
of
the
impact
as
knowledge
transla&on
tools
in
healthcare.
91
%
8%
1%
Objec^ves
Ø To
explore
the
depth
and
breadth
of
evidence
for
the
use
of
CWAs
in
healthcare.
Ø To
iden&fy
the
factors
that
affect
their
uses.
Ø To
iden&fy
areas
that
require
further
systema&c
reviewing
and
where
more
primary
research
is
needed.
Methods
Conclusion
Studies
retrieved
from
targeted
databases
(n=7234)
Grey
literature
(n=1921)
Google/Bing/Yahoo
(n=1200)
Mednar
(n=400)
HTAi
vortal
(n=319)
Other
sources
(n=2)
Grey
literature
excluded
(n=1892)
Duplicates
(n=257)
Broken
link
(n=91)
Not
healthcare
field
(n=625)
Not
men^oning
wikis
or
online
CWA
(n=660)
No
results
(n=245)
Published
paper
already
considered
(n=14)
Grey
literature
included
(n=29)
Studies
screened
on
&tle
and
abstract
(n=4436)
Studies
screened
on
full
text
(n=368)
Studies
considered
(n=76)
Papers
added
(n=35)
Grey
literature
(n=29)
Sugges&ons
by
authors
contacted
(n=2)
Abstracts
from
conference
(n=3)
Reference
lists
(n=1)
Studies
excluded
(n=2798)
Author
with
“Wiki”
in
name
(n=541)
Wriaen
before
2001
(n=885)
Duplicates
(n=1372)
Studies
excluded
or
not
considered
(n=4068)
Not
men^oning
wikis
or
online
CWA
(n=2853)
Not
healthcare
field
(n=1059)
Protocol
(n=7)
Conceptual
framework
(n=6)
Conference
proceedings
(n=4)
Editorial
or
opinion
(n=106)
Literature
review
(n=33)
Ø CWAs
present
many
poten&al
posi&ve
and
nega&ve
effects
as
knowledge
transla&on
tools.
Ø LiQle
is
known
about
how
to
address
the
many
barriers
to
their
implementa&on
in
healthcare
and
how
to
foster
contribu&ons
by
healthcare
stakeholders.
Ø Future
research
should
focus
on
conduc&ng
a
formal
systema&c
review
on
the
effec&veness
of
CWAs
as
a
KT
strategy
and
conduc&ng
primary
research
to
address
the
barriers
iden&fied
for
different
stakeholders.
Studies
excluded
or
not
considered
(n=292)
Wikipedia
used
only
as
a
reference
(n=6)
Gene^cs/genomics
(n=87)
Biology
(n=32)
Chemistry
(n=5)
Library
science
(n=14)
Neural
network
modeling
(n=1)
Medical
informa^cs
(n=12)
Clinical
trials
and
wikis
(n=11)
Psychology
of
wiki
users
(n=5)
No
results
(n=119)
Ø Defini&on
of
CWAs:
any
technology
enabling
joint
and
simultaneous
edi&ng
of
online
documents
by
many
end
users
e.g.
Studies
analysed
(n=111)
Wiki,
Google
Docs.
Ø Databases
searched:
Scien&fic
(n=7);
Grey
(n=6);
conference
proceedings
for
WikiSym,
Medicine
2.0
and
AMIA.
Group
2:
Quality
of
Group
3:
Collabora&ve
Group
1:
PaQerns
of
use
of
Ø Crowdsouced
papers
(Mendeley,
Google
Docs,
HLWIKI,
email,
informa&on
in
different
wri&ng
applica&ons
used
as
online
collabora&ve
wri&ng
collabora&ve
wri&ng
knowledge
transla&on
applica&ons
TwiQer)
applica&ons
interven&on
(n=26)
(n=25)
(n=73)
Ø Reviewers
independently
reviewed
cita&ons,
selected
eligible
studies
and
extracted
data.
EPPI-­‐reviewer
was
used.
Ø Papers
presen&ng
qualita&ve
or
quan&ta&ve
empirical
evidence
Ø Table
1-­‐
Most
frequently
reported
Barriers/
Facilitators/
and
Perceived
Beneficial/
Nega&ve
Effects
were
included.
Barriers
Facilitators
Perceived
beneficial
effects
Perceived
nega&ve
effects
Ø Qualita&ve
content
analysis
to
iden&fy
factors
related
to
use
of
(n=48)
(n=92)
(n=57)
(n=23)
CWAs
using
the
Gagnon
(2010)
framework
and
their
effects
on
Unfamiliarity
with
informa&on
and
Nega&ve
emo&ons
/
added
stress
Training
with
the
applica&on
(n=12)
Improve
collabora&on
(n=41)
healthcare
using
the
Donabedian
(1996)
model.
communica&on
technology
(ICT)
(n=8)
(n=6)
Ø Study
protocol
published.
Scien&fic
quality
of
the
resource
(n=10)
Ease
learning
(n=30)
Fast
dissemina&on
of
poorly
validated
informa&on
(n=4)
Ease
of
use
(n=8)
Improve
knowledge
management
and
accessibility
to
informa&on
(n=30)
Informa&on
overload
(n=4)
Results
Worries
about
the
scien&fic
quality
of
the
informa&on
(n=5)
Triability
(n=7)
Improve
confidence,
mo&va&on
and
sa&sfac&on
(n=29)
Enhance
percep&on
of
unequal
work
distribu&on
(n=2)
Ø Flow
chart
shows
number
of
included
papers.
Ø Crowdsourced
4
papers
(2
via
Google
Docs,
2
via
email),
but
none
were
included.
Ø Recurrent
barriers
and
facilitators
+
posi&ve
and
nega&ve
effects
shown
in
Table
1.
Closed
applica&on
(n=5)
Community
of
prac&ce
/
community
of
learners
(n=7)
Improve
efficiency
of
health
care
(n=19)
Possibility
of
spam
/
vandalism
(n=2)
Lack
of
material
resources
–
access
to
ICT
(n=5)
Presence
of
a
moderator
(n=7)
Improve
quality
of
health
care
(n=6)
Complexity
of
use
(n=4)
Feeling
of
self-­‐efficacy
(n=6)
Prevent
disease
(n=3)
Lack
of
self-­‐efficacy
(n=6)
Time
constraints
/
workload
(n=6)
T.vandeBelt@reshape.umcn.nl