ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Crowdsourcing to support training for public health: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. 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.
- The new Flemings now sing: a methodological evaluation of gamification and citizen science strategies to raise awareness on antimicrobial resistance.Immunology and cell biology · 2026Article
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
Crowdsourcing is an interactive process that has a group of individuals attempt to solve all or part of a problem and then share solutions with the public. Crowdsourcing is increasingly used to enhance training through developing learning materials and promoting mentorship. This scoping review aims to assess the literature on crowdsourcing for training in public health. We searched five medical and public health research databases using terms related to crowdsourcing and training. For this review, the concept of crowdsourcing included open calls, designathons, and other activities. We used a PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews. Each full-text was assessed by two independent reviewers. We identified 4,071 citations, and 74 studies were included in the scoping review. This included one study in a low-income country, 15 studies in middle-income countries, 35 studies in high-income countries, and 11 studies conducted in multiple countries of varying income levels (the country income level for 12 studies could not be ascertained). Nine studies used open calls, 35 used a hackathon, designathon or other "a-thon" event, and 30 used other crowdsourcing methods, such as citizen science programs and online creation platforms. In terms of crowdsourcing purpose, studies used crowdsourcing to educate participants (20 studies), develop learning materials (17 studies), enhance mentorship (13 studies) and identify trainees (9 studies). Fifteen studies used crowdsourcing for more than one training purpose. Thirty-four studies were done in-person, 31 were conducted virtually and nine used both meeting options for their crowdsourcing events. Seventeen studies generated open access materials. Our review found that crowdsourcing has been increasingly used to support public health training. This participatory approach can be a useful tool for training in a variety of settings and populations. Future research should investigate the impact of crowdsourcing on training outcomes.
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.