Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42140619›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2026

Evaluating Crowdsourced Data Collection for Carceral Death Surveillance: Pilot Study Using Amazon Mechanical Turk.

Emily Wang, Julia Healey-Parera, Amy Duan, David H Cloud, Mike Dolan Fliss, Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Emily Wang *Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0314-2464
Julia Healey-Parera *Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-1523-8799
Amy Duan *Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-0928-5489
David H Cloud *Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5270-4171
Mike Dolan Fliss *Injury Prevention Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3194-7171
Lauren Brinkley-RubinsteinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2191-6240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople who are incarcerated face significantly higher health risks than the general population, yet deaths in custody remain underreported and poorly monitored by public health systems. Although the federal Death in Custody Reporting Act requires reporting of all deaths in correctional facilities to the US Department of Justice, reporting has been inconsistent, delayed, and often publicly inaccessible. Consequently, researchers have turned to press releases issued by correctional agencies as one of the few timely sources of information on deaths in custody. However, these press releases vary widely in content and structure, making standardized data extraction difficult. Crowdsourcing platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) may offer a faster, low-cost method for gathering data, but their utility in this setting remains untested.

objectiveThis pilot study evaluated whether MTurk could be used to extract structured information from press releases about deaths in custody.

methodsWe selected 144 press releases describing deaths between 2000 and 2023 from state prison systems and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Each press release was assigned to 3 MTurk crowd workers (who were required to be English speaking and located in the United States), resulting in 432 individual responses. Workers were informed in advance that the task involved reviewing sensitive content related to deaths in custody. Crowd workers completed a 16-question form aligned with Death in Custody Reporting Act variables, including age, race and ethnicity, date of death, and facility location. Data quality was assessed using strict concordance (all 3 responses matched), 2-way concordance (2 of 3 responses matched), and qualitative review of common errors. Task completion time was also recorded. Sampling included complete subsets of selected press releases and a stratified subset from systems with more complex reporting formats.

resultsAll 144 entries were completed within 48 hours. However, agreement across crowd workers was low: strict concordance was 14.2% (20/144) for age, 12.3% (18/144) for race or ethnicity, and 11.4% (16/144) for date of birth. Qualitative review identified frequent errors, missing data, and inattentive or automated responses. Crowd workers often misinterpreted system-specific terminology or copied placeholders instead of extracting information from the source. The low agreement indicated that this baseline MTurk configuration produced insufficient data quality for more resource-intensive use.

conclusionsMTurk enabled rapid task completion but produced low-quality results when applied to extracting structured data from carceral press releases. These findings suggest that general crowdsourcing platforms are poorly suited to complex data abstraction tasks without additional training or oversight. With improved task design or support from artificial intelligence tools, crowdsourcing may help address gaps in the surveillance of deaths in custody. Long-term improvements will require consistent, transparent, and standardized reporting practices across correctional institutions.

Indexed as

CrowdsourcingData CollectionPopulation SurveillanceHumansPilot ProjectsUnited StatesAmazon Mechanical Turkcarceral healthcrowdsourcingdeaths in custodydigital epidemiologyhealth equitymortality surveillancestructured data abstraction

Identifiers

PMID42140619
PMCPMC13221621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.