Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22155746›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2011

WikiBuild: a new application to support patient and health care professional involvement in the development of patient support tools.

Patrick Michel Archambault

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04140084 (Wiki Head CT Choice Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04140084 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Wiki Head CT Choice Study: Adaptation of Two Decision Aids to Support Shared Decision Making About Performing a Head CT for Adult and Pediatric Victims of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaval UniversityRan2018 to 2020Enrolled40ConditionsMild Traumatic Brain Injury, Emergencies, Decision-makingArmsReal-life clinical meetings
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Patrick Michel ArchambaultCentre de santé et de services sociaux Alphonse-Desjardins (Centre hospitalier affilié universitaire de Lévis), Lévis, QC, Canada. patrick.m.archambault@gmail.com

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Active patient and public involvement as partners in their own health care and in the development of health services is key to achieving a health care system that is responsive to patients' needs and values. It promotes better use of the health care system, and improves health outcomes, quality of life and patient satisfaction. By involving patients and health care professionals as partners in the creation and updating of patient health support tools, wikis--highly accessible, interactive vehicles of communication--have the potential to empower users to implement these support tools in daily life. Acknowledging the potential of wikis, and recognizing that they capitalize on the free and open access to information, scientists, opinion leaders and patient advocates have suggested that wikis could help decision-making constituencies improve the delivery of health care. They might also decrease its cost and improve access to knowledge within developing countries. However, little is known about the efficacy of wikis in helping to attain these goals. There is also a need to know more about the intention of patients and health care workers to use wikis, in what circumstances and what factors will influence their use of wikis. In this issue of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, Gupta et al describe how they developed and tested a new wiki-inspired application to improve asthma care. The researchers involved patients with asthma, primary care physicians, pulmonologists and certified asthma educators in the construction of an asthma action plan. Their paper--entitled "WikiBuild: a new online collaboration process for multistakeholder tool development and consensus building"--is the first description of a wiki-inspired technology built to involve patients and health care professionals in the development of a patient support tool. This innovative study has made important contributions toward how wikis could be generalized to involve multiple stakeholders in the development of other knowledge translation tools such as clinical practice guidelines or decision aids. More specifically, Gupta et al have uncovered potential action mechanisms toward increasing usage of these tools by patients and health care professionals. These are decreasing hierarchical influences, increasing usability and adapting a tool to local context. More research is now needed to determine if the use of the resulting wiki-developed plan will actually be higher than a plan developed using other methods. Furthermore, there is also a need to assess the intention of participants to continue using wiki-based processes on an ongoing basis. It is in this dynamic and continuous retroaction loop that the support tool users--both patients and health care professionals--can adapt and improve the product after its real-life shortcomings are revealed and as new evidence becomes available. As such, a wiki would be more than a simple patient support development tool, but could also become a dynamic and interactive repository and delivery tool that would facilitate ongoing and sustainable patient and professional engagement.

Indexed as

TelemedicineAsthmaCooperative BehaviorHealth PersonnelHumansInternetPatient-Centered CarePatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationSelf Care

Identifiers

PMID22155746
PMCPMC3278100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.