ArticleSexually transmitted infections2024
Using crowdsourcing at an academic conference to develop STI testing messaging for public dissemination.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Operationalizing rapid implementation science for responsive HIV programs.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Building capacity for HIV and implementation science among students in the United States: the stimulating training and access to HIV research experiences (STAR) program.Frontiers in public health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe provide a guide to conducting a crowdsourcing activity at an international sexually transmitted infection (STI) conference to design public messaging about STI testing and disseminating that messaging via social media.
methodsA speaker gave a presentation at a conference plenary session on the concepts of cocreation, crowdsourcing and designathons, and the application of these participatory approaches in public health research. To illustrate one of these approaches (crowdsourcing), attendees in the audience were asked to take part in a voluntary participatory activity, in which they would pair up with a fellow attendee sitting nearby and write down an idea on a blank notecard. Dyads were given 10 min to create an entry responding to the prompt, 'Write something that inspires gonorrhoea and/or chlamydia testing (eg, picture, jingle, rhyme)'. Each entry was judged by at least four independent judges on a scale of 0 (lowest quality) to 10 (highest quality) based on their innovation and potential to promote chlamydia/gonorrhoea testing. Scores were averaged to determine the finalist entries.
resultsWe received 32 entries. The average score was 6.41 and scores ranged from 4.5 to 8 (median 6.63, IQR 5.75, 7.06). Half of entries (n=16) were slogans, 15.6% (n=5) were poems/rhymes, 12.5% (n=4) were memes/images, 9.4% (n=3) were programme implementation ideas, 3.1% (n=1) was a song verse, and 3.1% (n=1) was a video idea. One finalist entry was a meme and received 720 impressions, 120 engagements, 27 detail expands, 19 likes, 6 reposts and 1 response on Twitter. The second finalist entry was a slogan and received 242 impressions, 16 engagements, 6 detail expands, 4 likes and 2 reposts.
conclusionsConducting crowdsourcing activities at future conferences may be an innovative, feasible way to develop and disseminate engaging and important STI and other health messaging to the public in a short period of time.
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.