Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30458759›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2018

Institutionalizing healthcare hackathons to promote diversity in collaboration in medicine.

Jason K Wang, Shivaal K Roy, Michele Barry, Robert T Chang, Ami S Bhatt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Attitudes and Knowledge Levels of Optometry Students and Educators Towards Artificial Intelligence in Optometric Practice: An Online Cross-Sectional Survey.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Research on interdisciplinary issues of artificial intelligence medical devices].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Hacking systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): outcomes of the Waterlupus hackathon.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Jason K WangMathematical and Computational Science Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Shivaal K RoyDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Michele BarryDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, 269 Campus Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Robert T ChangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Ami S BhattDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, 269 Campus Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. asbhatt@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8099-2975

Funding

School of Medicine, Stanford University (US) Center for Innovation in Global Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical students and healthcare professionals can benefit from exposure to cross-disciplinary teamwork and core concepts of medical innovation. Indeed, to address complex challenges in patient care, diversity in collaboration across medicine, engineering, business, and design is critical. However, a limited number of academic institutions have established cross-disciplinary opportunities for students and young professionals within these domains to work collaboratively towards diverse healthcare needs.

methodsDrawing upon best practices from computer science and engineering, healthcare hackathons bring together interdisciplinary teams of students and professionals to collaborate, brainstorm, and build solutions to unmet clinical needs. Over the course of six months, a committee of 20 undergraduates, medical students, and physician advisors organized Stanford University's first healthcare hackathon (November 2016). Demographic data from initial applications were supplemented with responses from a post-hackathon survey gauging themes of diversity in collaboration, professional development, interest in medical innovation, and educational value. In designing and evaluating the event, the committee focused on measurable outcomes of diversity across participants (skillset, age, gender, academic degree), ideas (clinical needs), and innovations (projects).

resultsDemographic data (n = 587 applicants, n = 257 participants) reveal participants across diverse academic backgrounds, age groups, and domains of expertise were in attendance. From 50 clinical needs presented representing 19 academic fields, 40 teams ultimately formed and submitted projects spanning web (n = 13) and mobile applications (n = 13), artificial intelligence-based tools (n = 6), and medical devices (n = 3), among others. In post-hackathon survey responses (n = 111), medical students and healthcare professionals alike noted a positive impact on their ability to work in multidisciplinary teams, learn from individuals of different backgrounds, and address complex healthcare challenges.

conclusionsHealthcare hackathons can encourage diversity across individuals, ideas, and projects to address clinical challenges. By providing an outline of Stanford's inaugural event, we hope more universities can adopt the healthcare hackathon model to promote diversity in collaboration in medicine.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersInterdisciplinary StudiesAdultBiomedical TechnologyCooperative BehaviorCurriculumFemaleHealth PersonnelHealth ServicesHumansInterprofessional RelationsMaleProfessional CompetenceStudents, MedicalHackathonInterdisciplinary collaborationMedical innovationMedical technology

Identifiers

PMID30458759
PMCPMC6245929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.