Crowdsourcing Literature Reviews in New Domains

Weiß, Michael

doi:10.22215/timreview/963

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Crowdsourcing may be their 21st century counterpart. Specifically in SR on new research topics with no established classification of knowledge, this is even more challenging (Weiss, 2016).…”

Section: Ntroductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PCCN and PCCN-related difficult decision-making are idiosyncratic concepts and can be conceived differently by doctors, patients, caregivers, and researchers due to different knowledge and lived experience. The absence of established classifications of knowledge makes it difficult to identify studies presenting relevant information and interpret it (Weiss, 2016). We worked with specialized librarians to establish a comprehensive search strategy with high recall to capture research studies looking at difficult decision-making in a population with at least one PCCN characteristic (interactional issues, comorbidities, mental health issues, drug interactions, social vulnerability, or healthcare services overuse/underuse/misuse).…”

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, we turned to crowdsourcing which was applied at two levels. Our project is an example of "direct crowdsourcing" where one "requester" recruited participants, crowd members, to complete specific screening tasks (Weiss, 2016).…”

Section: Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The quality control of crowdsourced work is a common concern (Samimi & Ravana, 2014;Strang & Simmons, 2018;Weiss, 2016) and is of particular importance in SR. For each level, the software allowed the first author to verify the selection bias of crowdreviewers, specifically for two concepts due to the lack of established knowledge classification (PCCN and Decisional needs). For each crowdreviewer, sets of excluded/included studies were randomly selected and checked by the first author.…”

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Crowdsourcing a mixed systematic review on a complex topic and a heterogeneous population: Lessons learned

Bujold

Granikov

Sherif

et al. 2018

EFI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews (SR) typically focus on well-defined topics and homogeneous populations. In contrast, conducting a SR on patients with complex care needs (PCCN) presents two main challenges: a novel ill-defined topic and a heterogeneous population. This commentary summarizes the lessons learned from our experience using crowdsourcing to meet these challenges. PCCN often suffer from combinations of multiple issues (medical, interactional, sociocultural, psychological, related to healthcare services use), which can lead to difficult decision-making involving different stakeholders (themselves, caregivers, practitioners). The objective of our SR was to systematically assess decisional needs of PCCN reported in the literature. With the collaboration of librarians, we identified 8616 potentially relevant studies in five databases. A team of 20 crowdreviewers were trained and participated in the selection of 156 relevant studies, using specialised online software. The main benefit of crowdsourcing was the diversity of crowdreviewers' viewpoints which helped us establish an intersubjective knowledge classification of idiosyncratic concepts related to PCCN and their decisional needs. In line with other crowdsourced re-views, our experience confirms that crowdsourcing can be useful in SR with a large number of studies on ill-defined domains and with heterogeneous populations.

show abstract

Section: Ntroductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Crowdsourcing a mixed systematic review on a complex topic and a heterogeneous population: Lessons learned

Bujold

Granikov

Sherif

et al. 2018

EFI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conducting a literature review in a new domain presents unique challenges, as previously noted by Weiss (2016). In existing domains, researchers can use established classifications of knowledge to guide their search for and interpretation of the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2019

TIM Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Volume 9 Issue 8Overview The Technology Innovation Management Review (TIM Review) provides insights about the issues and emerging trends relevant to launching and growing technology businesses. The TIM Review focuses on the theories, strategies, and tools that help small and large technology companies succeed.Our readers are looking for practical ideas they can apply within their own organizations. The TIM Review brings together diverse viewpoints -from academics, entrepreneurs, companies of all sizes, the public sector, the community sector, and others -to bridge the gap between theory and practice. In particular, we focus on the topics of technology and global entrepreneurship in small and large companies. We welcome input from readers into upcoming themes. Please visit timreview.ca to suggest themes and nominate authors and guest editors.

show abstract