Ø Defini&on of CWAs: any technology enabling joint and simultaneous edi&ng of online documents by many end users e.g. Wiki, Google Docs.
Ø Databases searched: Scien&fic (n=7); Grey (n=6); conference proceedings for WikiSym, Medicine 2.0 and AMIA.
Ø Crowdsouced papers (Mendeley, Google Docs, HLWIKI, email, TwiQer)
Ø Reviewers independently reviewed cita&ons, selected eligible studies and extracted data. EPPI-‐reviewer was used.
Ø Papers presen&ng qualita&ve or quan&ta&ve empirical evidence were included.
Ø Qualita&ve content analysis to iden&fy factors related to use of CWAs using the Gagnon (2010) framework and their effects on healthcare using the Donabedian (1996) model.
Ø Study protocol published.
Titre du document Auteurs
Wikis and Collabora&ve Wri&ng Applica&ons in Healthcare: a Scoping Review Tom H van de Belt (1), Patrick Michel Archambault (2), Francisco J Grajales III (3), Marjan J Faber (2), Craig E Kuziemsky (4), Susie Gagnon (5), Andrea Bilodeau (5), Simon Rioux (5), Karine Aubin (6), Irving Gold (7), Marie-‐Pierre Gagnon (6), Alexis Turgeon (8), Cynthia Fournier (2), Mathieu Émond (2), Julien Poitras (2), Jan A.M. Kremer (1), Gunther Eysenbach (9), France Légaré (10) (1) Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands; (2) Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada; (3) Faculty of Medicine, University of Bri^sh Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; (4) Telfer School of Management, University of Oaawa, Oaawa, Canada; (5) Centre de santé et de services sociaux Alphonse-‐Desjardins (CHAU de Lévis), Lévis, Canada; (6) Faculté des sciences infirmières, Université Laval, Québec, Canada; (7) Associa^on of Facul^es of Medicine of Canada, Oaawa, Canada; (8) Division de soins intensifs, Département d'anesthésiologie, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada; (9) Centre for Global eHealth Innova^on, University of Toronto; (10) Canada
Research Chair in Implementa^on of Shared Decision Making in Primary Care, Québec, Canada
Background Ø Collabora&ve wri&ng applica&ons (CWAs) have the poten&al to
empower mul&ple stakeholders to disseminate and apply knowledge in prac&ce.
Ø The rapid rise in the use of CWAs has created the need for a synthesis of the evidence of the impact as knowledge transla&on tools in healthcare.
Objec^ves Ø To explore the depth and breadth of evidence for the use of CWAs
in healthcare. Ø To iden&fy the factors that affect their uses. Ø To iden&fy areas that require further systema&c reviewing and
where more primary research is needed. Methods
Conclusion
Ø CWAs present many poten&al posi&ve and nega&ve effects as knowledge transla&on tools.
Ø LiQle is known about how to address the many barriers to their implementa&on in healthcare and how to foster contribu&ons by healthcare stakeholders.
Ø Future research should focus on conduc&ng a formal systema&c review on the effec&veness of CWAs as a KT strategy and conduc&ng primary research to address the barriers iden&fied for different stakeholders.
Results
Ø Figure 1. Flow Chart
Ø Flow chart shows number of included papers. Ø Crowdsourced 4 papers (2 via Google Docs, 2 via email), but none
were included. Ø Recurrent barriers and facilitators + posi&ve and nega&ve effects
shown in Table 1.
Grey literature (n=1921) Google/Bing/Yahoo (n=1200) Mednar (n=400) HTAi vortal (n=319) Other sources (n=2)
Studies retrieved from targeted databases
(n=7234)
Studies screened on &tle and abstract (n=4436)
Studies screened on full text (n=368)
Studies considered (n=76)
Studies analysed (n=111)
Group 2: Quality of informa&on in different collabora&ve wri&ng
applica&ons (n=25)
Group 3: Collabora&ve wri&ng applica&ons used as
knowledge transla&on interven&on
(n=73)
Group 1: PaQerns of use of online collabora&ve wri&ng
applica&ons (n=26)
Grey literature excluded (n=1892)
Duplicates (n=257) Broken link (n=91) Not healthcare field (n=625) Not men^oning wikis or online CWA (n=660) No results (n=245) Published paper already considered (n=14) Papers added (n=35)
Grey literature (n=29) Sugges&ons by authors contacted (n=2) Abstracts from conference (n=3) Reference lists (n=1)
Grey literature included (n=29)
Studies excluded (n=2798) Author with “Wiki” in name (n=541) Wriaen before 2001 (n=885) Duplicates (n=1372)
Studies excluded or not considered (n=292)
Wikipedia used only as a reference (n=6) Gene^cs/genomics (n=87) Biology (n=32) Chemistry (n=5) Library science (n=14) Neural network modeling (n=1) Medical informa^cs (n=12) Clinical trials and wikis (n=11) Psychology of wiki users (n=5) No results (n=119)
Studies excluded or not considered (n=4068)
Not men^oning wikis or online CWA (n=2853) Not healthcare field (n=1059) Protocol (n=7) Conceptual framework (n=6) Conference proceedings (n=4) Editorial or opinion (n=106) Literature review (n=33)
Barriers (n=48)
Facilitators (n=92)
Perceived beneficial effects (n=57)
Perceived nega&ve effects (n=23)
Unfamiliarity with informa&on and communica&on technology (ICT) (n=8) Training with the applica&on (n=12) Improve collabora&on (n=41) Nega&ve emo&ons / added stress
(n=6)
Lack of self-‐efficacy (n=6) Scien&fic quality of the resource (n=10) Ease learning (n=30) Fast dissemina&on of poorly validated informa&on (n=4)
Time constraints / workload (n=6) Ease of use (n=8) Improve knowledge management and accessibility to informa&on
(n=30) Informa&on overload (n=4)
Worries about the scien&fic quality of the informa&on (n=5) Triability (n=7) Improve confidence, mo&va&on
and sa&sfac&on (n=29) Enhance percep&on of unequal
work distribu&on (n=2)
Closed applica&on (n=5)
Community of prac&ce / community of learners (n=7)
Improve efficiency of health care (n=19)
Possibility of spam / vandalism (n=2)
Lack of material resources – access to ICT (n=5) Presence of a moderator (n=7) Improve quality of health care
(n=6)
Complexity of use (n=4) Feeling of self-‐efficacy (n=6) Prevent disease (n=3)
Ø Table 1-‐ Most frequently reported Barriers/ Facilitators/ and Perceived Beneficial/ Nega&ve Effects
91 % 8% 1%
