ArticleThe patient2014
The potential of crowdsourcing to improve patient-centered care.
Article in The patient, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consumer research priorities for pediatric anesthesia and perioperative medicine.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Comparing the Recruitment of Research Participants With Chronic Low Back Pain Using Amazon Mechanical Turk With the Recruitment of Patients From Chiropractic Clinics: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics · 2021Article
- Research data management in health and biomedical citizen science: practices and prospects.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- Setting the research agenda for living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness: reflections on a research prioritisation exercise.Research involvement and engagement · 2020Article
- The challenge of determining appropriate care in the era of patient-centered care and rising health care costs.Journal of health services research & policy · 2019Article
- "Crowdsourcing" ten years in: A review.Journal of global health · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crowdsourcing (CS) is the outsourcing of a problem or task to a crowd. Although patient-centered care (PCC) may aim to be tailored to an individual's needs, the uses of CS for generating ideas, identifying values, solving problems, facilitating research, and educating an audience represent powerful roles that can shape both allocation of shared resources and delivery of personalized care and treatment. CS can often be conducted quickly and at relatively low cost. Pitfalls include bias, risks of research ethics, inadequate quality of data, inadequate metrics, and observer-expectancy effect. Health professionals and consumers in the US should increase their attention to CS for the benefit of PCC. Patients' participation in CS to shape health policy and decisions is one way to pursue PCC itself and may help to improve clinical outcomes through a better understanding of patients' perspectives. CS should especially be used to traverse the quality-cost curve, or decrease costs while preserving or improving quality of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24671920What 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.