WikiBuild: A New Application to Support Patient and Health Care Professional Involvement in the Development of Patient Support Tools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active patient and public involvement as partners in their own health care and in the development of health services is key to achieving a health care system that is responsive to patients' needs and values. It promotes better use of the health care system, and improves health outcomes, quality of life and patient satisfaction. By involving patients and health care professionals as partners in the creation and updating of patient health support tools, wikis--highly accessible, interactive vehicles of communication--have the potential to empower users to implement these support tools in daily life. Acknowledging the potential of wikis, and recognizing that they capitalize on the free and open access to information, scientists, opinion leaders and patient advocates have suggested that wikis could help decision-making constituencies improve the delivery of health care. They might also decrease its cost and improve access to knowledge within developing countries. However, little is known about the efficacy of wikis in helping to attain these goals. There is also a need to know more about the intention of patients and health care workers to use wikis, in what circumstances and what factors will influence their use of wikis. In this issue of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, Gupta et al describe how they developed and tested a new wiki-inspired application to improve asthma care. The researchers involved patients with asthma, primary care physicians, pulmonologists and certified asthma educators in the construction of an asthma action plan. Their paper--entitled "WikiBuild: a new online collaboration process for multistakeholder tool development and consensus building"--is the first description of a wiki-inspired technology built to involve patients and health care professionals in the development of a patient support tool. This innovative study has made important contributions toward how wikis could be generalized to involve multiple stakeholders in the development of other knowledge translation tools such as clinical practice guidelines or decision aids. More specifically, Gupta et al have uncovered potential action mechanisms toward increasing usage of these tools by patients and health care professionals. These are decreasing hierarchical influences, increasing usability and adapting a tool to local context. More research is now needed to determine if the use of the resulting wiki-developed plan will actually be higher than a plan developed using other methods. Furthermore, there is also a need to assess the intention of participants to continue using wiki-based processes on an ongoing basis. It is in this dynamic and continuous retroaction loop that the support tool users--both patients and health care professionals--can adapt and improve the product after its real-life shortcomings are revealed and as new evidence becomes available. As such, a wiki would be more than a simple patient support development tool, but could also become a dynamic and interactive repository and delivery tool that would facilitate ongoing and sustainable patient and professional engagement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it