ArticleDigital health
'Using humanity to change systems' - understanding the work of online feedback moderation: A case study of Care Opinion Scotland.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo gain a deeper understanding of online patient feedback moderation through the organisation of Care Opinion in Scotland.
methodsAn ethnographic study, initially using in-person participant observations, switching to remote methods due to the pandemic. This involved the use of remote observations and interviews. Interviews were carried out with the whole Scottish team (
resultsOur results identify three major themes of work found in online patient feedback moderation. The first is process work, where moderators make decisions on how to edit and publish stories. The second is emotional labour from working with healthcare experiences and with NHS staff. The third is the brokering/mediation role of Care Opinion, where they must manage the relationships between authors, subscribing healthcare providers and Scottish Government. Our results also capture that these different themes are not independent and can at times influence the others.
conclusionOur results build on previous literature on Care Opinion and provide novel insights into the emotional and brokering/mediation work they undertake. Care Opinion holds a unique position, where they must balance the interests of the key stakeholders. Care Opinion holds the power to amplify authors' voices but the power to make changes to services lies with NHS staff and services. Online moderation work is complex, and moderators require support to carry out their work especially given the emotional impact. Further research is planned to understand how patient stories are used by NHS Scotland, and the emotional labour involved with stories, from both the author and NHS staff perspective.
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.