ArticleBMJ open2021
Joint international consensus statement on crowdsourcing challenge contests in health and medicine: results of a modified Delphi process.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consensus on Adolescent and Young Adult HIV Research Consent in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Sexual and reproductive health service delivery innovations and adaptations during COVID-19: A systematic review and crowdsourcing open call.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- How to (or how not to) implement crowdsourcing for the development of health interventions: lessons learned from four African countries.Health policy and planning · 2024Article
- A designathon to co-create HPV screening and vaccination approaches for mothers and daughters in Nigeria: findings from a community-led participatory event.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Health research mentorship in low-income and middle-income countries: a global qualitative evidence synthesis of data from a crowdsourcing open call and scoping review.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- PrEP your step: Implementing an online crowdsourcing contest to engage young people in HIV prevention in Washington DC, USA.PloS one · 2024Article
- Pay-it-forward gonorrhea and chlamydia testing among men who have sex with men and male STD patients in China: the PIONEER pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial protocol.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Crowdsourcing to support training for public health: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Social innovations for healthBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a consensus statement to provide advice on designing, implementing and evaluating crowdsourcing challenge contests in public health and medical contexts.
designModified Delphi using three rounds of survey questionnaires and one consensus workshop.
settingUganda for face-to-face consensus activities, global for online survey questionnaires.
participantsA multidisciplinary expert panel was convened at a consensus-development conference in Uganda and included 21 researchers with experience leading challenge contests, five public health sector workers, and nine Ugandan end users. An online survey was sent to 140 corresponding authors of previously published articles that had used crowdsourcing methods.
resultsA subgroup of expert panel members developed the initial statement and survey. We received responses from 120 (85.7%) survey participants, which were presented at an in-person workshop of all 21 panel members. Panelists discussed each of the sections, revised the statement, and participated in a second round of the survey questionnaire. Based on this second survey round, we held detailed discussions of each subsection with workshop participants and further revised the consensus statement. We then conducted the third round of the questionnaire among the 21 expert panelists and used the results to finalize the statement. This iterative process resulted in 23 final statement items, all with greater than 80% consensus. Statement items are organised into the seven stages of a challenge contest, including the following: considering the appropriateness, organising a community steering committee, promoting the contest, assessing contributions, recognising contributors, sharing ideas and evaluating the contest (COPARSE).
conclusionsThere is high agreement among crowdsourcing experts and stakeholders on the design and implementation of crowdsourcing challenge contests. The COPARSE consensus statement can be used to organise crowdsourcing challenge contests, improve the rigour and reproducibility of crowdsourcing research and enable large-scale collaboration.
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.