ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018
Ethical Concerns of and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Crowdsourcing Contests and Innovation Challenges: Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crowdsourcing strategies to improve access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in Australia, the Philippines, Thailand and China.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Digital approaches to enhancing community engagement in clinical trials.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- How to make your research jump off the page: Co-creation to broaden public engagement in medical research.PLoS medicine · 2020Article
- Promoting routine syphilis screening among men who have sex with men in China: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of syphilis self-testing and lottery incentive.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Crowdsourcing Methods to Enhance HIV and Sexual Health Services: A Scoping Review and Qualitative Synthesis.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2019Article
- A Bibliometric Analysis of Crowdsourcing in the Field of Public Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Overcoming Barriers to Mobilizing Collective Intelligence in Research: Qualitative Study of Researchers With Experience of Collective Intelligence.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Article
- Data science research in sub-Saharan Africa: Ethical considerations in crowdsourcing for community engagement.South African journal of scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCrowdsourcing contests (also called innovation challenges, innovation contests, and inducement prize contests) can be used to solicit multisectoral feedback on health programs and design public health campaigns. They consist of organizing a steering committee, soliciting contributions, engaging the community, judging contributions, recognizing a subset of contributors, and sharing with the community.
objectiveThis scoping review describes crowdsourcing contests by stage, examines ethical problems at each stage, and proposes potential ways of mitigating risk.
methodsOur analysis was anchored in the specific example of a crowdsourcing contest that our team organized to solicit videos promoting condom use in China. The purpose of this contest was to create compelling 1-min videos to promote condom use. We used a scoping review to examine the existing ethical literature on crowdsourcing to help identify and frame ethical concerns at each stage.
resultsCrowdsourcing has a group of individuals solve a problem and then share the solution with the public. Crowdsourcing contests provide an opportunity for community engagement at each stage: organizing, soliciting, promoting, judging, recognizing, and sharing. Crowdsourcing poses several ethical concerns: organizing-potential for excluding community voices; soliciting-potential for overly narrow participation; promoting-potential for divulging confidential information; judging-potential for biased evaluation; recognizing-potential for insufficient recognition of the finalist; and sharing-potential for the solution to not be implemented or widely disseminated.
conclusionsCrowdsourcing contests can be effective and engaging public health tools but also introduce potential ethical problems. We present methods for the responsible conduct of crowdsourcing contests.
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.