ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2013
Wikis and collaborative writing applications in health care: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Supporting the Creation of a LEARNing INteGrated Health System to Mobilize Context-adapted Knowledge With a Wiki Platform to Improve the Transitions of Frail Seniors From From Hospitals and Emergency Departments to the cOMmunity: Phase II
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
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.
- Collaborative writing applications in healthcare: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- What Are We Looking for in Computer-Based Learning Interventions in Medical Education? A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Pooled it
- Medical wikis dedicated to clinical practice: a systematic review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Pooled it
- Impact of Scientific Versus Emotional Wording of Patient Questions on Doctor-Patient Communication in an Internet Forum: A Randomized Controlled Experiment with Medical Students.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Trial
- Trial
- Developing a toolkit for building a community hospital clinical research program.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024Article
- First evaluation of an app to optimize and organize the processes and assessments in dental clinical courses.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Medical Education 4.0: A Neurology Perspective.Cureus · 2022Review
- Factors Associated With Specialists' Intention to Adopt New Behaviors After Taking Web-Based Continuing Professional Development Courses: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR medical education · 2022Article
- Designing for Dissemination and Sustainability to Promote Equitable Impacts on Health.Annual review of public health · 2022Review
- Incorporating lessons from women naturalists to support biodiversity education and under-represented students.SN social sciences · 2022Article
- Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2021Article
- Intention to Use Wiki-Based Knowledge Tools: Survey of Quebec Emergency Health Professionals.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Learning Integrated Health System to Mobilize Context-Adapted Knowledge With a Wiki Platform to Improve the Transitions of Frail Seniors From Hospitals and Emergency Departments to the Community (LEARNING WISDOM): Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Implementation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Association of Online Learning Behavior and Learning Outcomes for Medical Students: Large-Scale Usage Data Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2019Article
- The Learning Exchange, a Community Knowledge Commons for Learning Networks: Qualitative Evaluation to Test Acceptability, Feasibility, and Utility.JMIR formative research · 2019Article
- Long-term views on chronic kidney disease research priorities among stakeholders engaged in a priority-setting partnership: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
- Taking Constructivism One Step Further: Post Hoc Analysis of a Student-Created Wiki.JMIR medical education · 2018Article
- Social Media in the Identification of Living Kidney Donors: Platforms, Tools, and Strategies.Current transplantation reports · 2018Article
- Users, Uses, and Effects of Social Media in Dietetic Practice: Scoping Review of the Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCollaborative writing applications (eg, wikis and Google Documents) hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and health care. The rapid rise in their use has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation (KT) tools in the health care sector and for an inventory of the factors that affect their use.
objectiveThrough the Levac six-stage methodology, a scoping review was undertaken to explore the depth and breadth of evidence about the effective, safe, and ethical use of wikis and collaborative writing applications (CWAs) in health care.
methodsMultiple strategies were used to locate studies. Seven scientific databases and 6 grey literature sources were queried for articles on wikis and CWAs published between 2001 and September 16, 2011. In total, 4436 citations and 1921 grey literature items were screened. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, selected eligible studies, and extracted data using a standardized form. We included any paper presenting qualitative or quantitative empirical evidence concerning health care and CWAs. We defined a CWA as any technology that enables the joint and simultaneous editing of a webpage or an online document by many end users. We performed qualitative content analysis to identify the factors that affect the use of CWAs using the Gagnon framework and their effects on health care using the Donabedian framework.
resultsOf the 111 studies included, 4 were experimental, 5 quasi-experimental, 5 observational, 52 case studies, 23 surveys about wiki use, and 22 descriptive studies about the quality of information in wikis. We classified them by theme: patterns of use of CWAs (n=26), quality of information in existing CWAs (n=25), and CWAs as KT tools (n=73). A high prevalence of CWA use (ie, more than 50%) is reported in 58% (7/12) of surveys conducted with health care professionals and students. However, we found only one longitudinal study showing that CWA use is increasing in health care. Moreover, contribution rates remain low and the quality of information contained in different CWAs needs improvement. We identified 48 barriers and 91 facilitators in 4 major themes (factors related to the CWA, users' knowledge and attitude towards CWAs, human environment, and organizational environment). We also found 57 positive and 23 negative effects that we classified into processes and outcomes.
conclusionsAlthough we found some experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the effectiveness and safety of CWAs as educational and KT interventions, the vast majority of included studies were observational case studies about CWAs being used by health professionals and patients. More primary research is needed to find ways to address the different barriers to their use and to make these applications more useful for different stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.