Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31764263›Full record

ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2019

Crowdsourcing Methods to Enhance HIV and Sexual Health Services: A Scoping Review and Qualitative Synthesis.

Dan Wu, Jason J Ong, Weiming Tang, Tiarney D Ritchwood, Jennifer S Walker, Juliet Iwelunmor, Joseph D Tucker

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

Dan WuFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Jason J OngFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Weiming TangUniversity North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Project-China, Guangzhou, China.
Tiarney D RitchwoodFamily Medicine and Community Health, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Jennifer S WalkerHealth Sciences Library, University North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Juliet IwelunmorCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO.
Joseph D TuckerFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Virology, Immunology, and Microbiology CoreP30AI050410 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVID M. MARGOLIS · 2001 to 2026
$76.9M
ITEST: Innovative Tools to Expand Youth-Friendly HIV Self-TestingUH3HD096929 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI IWELUNMOR, JULIET · 2020 to 2022
$4.4M
Spurring Innovation in HIV Testing and Linkage: A Crowdsourcing Approach -Diversity SupplementR01AI114310 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI TUCKER, JOSEPH DAVID, WEI, CHONGYI · 2014 to 2018
$3.3M
ITEST: Innovative Tools to Expand Youth-Friendly HIV Self-TestingUG3HD096929 · NICHD · SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY · PI EZECHI, OLIVER CHUKWUJEKWU, IWELUNMOR, JULIET · 2018 to 2019
$2.3M
Mentoring Multidisciplinary Global HIV Patient-Oriented ResearchK24AI143471 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Joseph David Tucker · 2019 to 2026
$1.4M
Enhancing Partner Services among Men Who Have Sex with Men Living With HIV: A Pilot Randomized Controlled TrialR34MH119963 · NIMH · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI TANG, WEIMING, TUCKER, JOSEPH DAVID · 2019 to 2021
$568k
NIAID NIH HHS K24 AI143471NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI050410NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI114310NICHD NIH HHS UG3 HD096929NICHD NIH HHS UH3 HD096929NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH119963
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCrowdsourcing is increasingly used to improve community engagement in HIV and sexual health research. In this scoping review, we reviewed studies using crowdsourcing approaches in HIV and sexual health research to identify strengths, opportunities for expansion, and limitations of such approaches.

methodsWe searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed. Studies were included if they involved crowdsourcing activities, were in the field of HIV or sexual health, and described the methodology in sufficient detail. We conducted a qualitative synthesis of eligible articles.

resultsOur search strategy yielded 431 nonduplicate articles. After screening, 16 articles met the inclusion criteria, including 4 publications that described research from high-income countries, 7 from middle-income countries, 1 from a low-income country, and 4 that had a global focus. There were 4 categories of crowdsourcing: open contests, hackathons, open forums, and incident reporting systems. We identified common phases for data acquisition and dissemination: (1) preparation; (2) problem framing and crowd solicitation; (3) judging submissions; and (4) sharing selected submissions. Strengths of using crowdsourcing approaches include greater innovation due to crowd heterogeneity, encouragement of multisectoral collaboration, empowerment of vulnerable populations, cost-effectiveness, and relevance to local cultures and styles. Weaknesses among some methods include reliance on the internet, temporal transience, and difficulty in sustaining long-term community engagement.

conclusionsCrowdsourcing may be useful for HIV implementation research. Further research on crowdsourcing related to HIV and sexual health is needed.

Indexed as

CrowdsourcingHIV InfectionsHealth PromotionHealth Services ResearchHumansQualitative ResearchSexual Health

Identifiers

PMID31764263
PMCPMC6880797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.