ArticlePloS one2022
Evaluating and volunteering for crowdsourced interventions: Cross-sectional data on COVID-19 safety from a University Survey.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Co-creating strategies to promote uptake of HIV self-testing among young adults in Mecklenburg county, North Carolina: a protocol for a pilot implementation study.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite many innovative ideas generated in response to COVID-19, few studies have examined community preferences for these ideas. Our study aimed to determine university community members' preferences for three novel ideas identified through a crowdsourcing open call at the University of North Carolina (UNC) for making campus safer in the pandemic, as compared to existing (i.e. pre-COVID-19) resources. An online survey was conducted from March 30, 2021 -May 6, 2021. Survey participants included UNC students, staff, faculty, and others. The online survey was distributed using UNC's mass email listserv and research directory, departmental listservs, and student text groups. Collected data included participant demographics, COVID-19 prevention behaviors, preferences for finalist ideas vs. existing resources in three domains (graduate student supports, campus tours, and online learning), and interest in volunteering with finalist teams. In total 437 survey responses were received from 228 (52%) staff, 119 (27%) students, 78 (18%) faculty, and 12 (3%) others. Most participants were older than age 30 years (309; 71%), women (332, 78%), and white (363, 83.1%). Five participants (1%) were gender minorities, 66 (15%) identified as racial/ethnic minorities, and 46 (10%) had a disability. Most participants preferred the finalist idea for a virtual campus tour of UNC's lesser-known history compared to the existing campus tour (52.2% vs. 16.0%). For graduate student supports, 41.4% of participants indicated no preference between the finalist idea and existing supports; for online learning resources, the existing resource was preferred compared to the finalist idea (41.6% vs. 30.4%). Most participants agreed that finalists' ideas would have a positive impact on campus safety during COVID-19 (81.2%, 79.6%, and 79.2% for finalist ideas 1, 2 and 3 respectively). 61 (14.1%) participants indicated interest in volunteering with finalist teams. Together these findings contribute to the development and implementation of community-engaged crowdsourced campus safety interventions during COVID-19.
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.