Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31267977›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Overcoming Barriers to Mobilizing Collective Intelligence in Research: Qualitative Study of Researchers With Experience of Collective Intelligence.

Van Thu Nguyen, Bridget Young, Philippe Ravaud, Nivantha Naidoo, Mehdi Benchoufi, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Van Thu NguyenINSERM, U1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), Methods of Therapeutic Evaluation of Chronic Diseases Team (METHODS), Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2197-0455
Bridget YoungDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6041-9901
Philippe RavaudINSERM, U1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), Methods of Therapeutic Evaluation of Chronic Diseases Team (METHODS), Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8264-9206
Nivantha NaidooINSERM, U1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), Methods of Therapeutic Evaluation of Chronic Diseases Team (METHODS), Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4800-2254
Mehdi BenchoufiINSERM, U1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), Methods of Therapeutic Evaluation of Chronic Diseases Team (METHODS), Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1948-719X
Isabelle BoutronINSERM, U1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), Methods of Therapeutic Evaluation of Chronic Diseases Team (METHODS), Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5263-6241

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovative ways of planning and conducting research have emerged recently, based on the concept of collective intelligence. Collective intelligence is defined as shared intelligence emerging when people are mobilized within or outside an organization to work on a specific task that could result in more innovative outcomes than those when individuals work alone. Crowdsourcing is defined as "the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call."

objectiveThis qualitative study aimed to identify the barriers to mobilizing collective intelligence and ways to overcome these barriers and provide good practice advice for planning and conducting collective intelligence projects across different research disciplines.

methodsWe conducted a multinational online open-ended question survey and semistructured audio-recorded interviews with a purposive sample of researchers who had experience in running collective intelligence projects. The questionnaires had an interactive component, enabling respondents to rate and comment on the advice of their fellow respondents. Data were analyzed thematically, drawing on the framework method.

resultsA total of 82 respondents from various research fields participated in the survey (n=65) or interview (n=17). The main barriers identified were the lack of evidence-based guidelines for implementing collective intelligence, complexity in recruiting and engaging the community, and difficulties in disseminating the results of collective intelligence projects. We drew on respondents' experience to provide tips and good practice advice for governance, planning, and conducting collective intelligence projects. Respondents particularly suggested establishing a diverse coordination team to plan and manage collective intelligence projects and setting up common rules of governance for participants in projects. In project planning, respondents provided advice on identifying research problems that could be answered by collective intelligence and identifying communities of participants. They shared tips on preparing the task and interface and organizing communication activities to recruit and engage participants.

conclusionsMobilizing collective intelligence through crowdsourcing is an innovative method to increase research efficiency, although there are several barriers to its implementation. We present good practice advice from researchers with experience of collective intelligence across different disciplines to overcome barriers to mobilizing collective intelligence.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHealth ServicesHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultcollective intelligencecrowdsourcinghealthinterviewopen innovationresearchsurvey

Identifiers

PMID31267977
PMCPMC6632103

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.