RadiologyWiki.org: The Free Radiology Resource That Anyone Can Edit

Streeter, Jonathan L.; Lu, Michael T.; Rybicki, Frank J.

doi:10.1148/rg.274065090

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include RadiologyWiki, announced in 2007 42. and currently dormant, and Medpedia, which launched in 2009 with substantial institutional backing 39.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing social media use by clinicians: Table 1

Muhlen¹,

Ohno-Machado²

2012

J Am Med Inform Assoc

289

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adoption studies of social media use by clinicians were systematically reviewed, up to July 26th, 2011, to determine the extent of adoption and highlight trends in institutional responses. This search led to 370 articles, of which 50 were selected for review, including 15 adoption surveys. The definition of social media is evolving rapidly; the authors define it broadly to include social networks and group-curated reference sites such as Wikipedia. Facebook accounts are very common among health science students (64–96%) and less so for professional clinicians (13–47%). Adoption rates have increased sharply in the past 4 years. Wikipedia is widely used as a reference tool. Attempts at incorporating social media into clinical training have met with mixed success. Posting of unprofessional content and breaches of patient confidentiality, especially by students, are not uncommon and have prompted calls for social media guidelines.

show abstract

“…These include RadiologyWiki, announced in 2007 42. and currently dormant, and Medpedia, which launched in 2009 with substantial institutional backing 39.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing social media use by clinicians: Table 1

Muhlen¹,

Ohno-Machado²

2012

J Am Med Inform Assoc

289

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Maintaining high-quality information as well as high contribution levels is a heated debate with opposing views (ie, password-protected wiki vs open wiki) [53,105,109,155,163,169,173]. Authors from multiple fields have explored modalities to stimulate participation [276,281,284,285,290-296].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care: A Scoping Review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCollaborative writing applications (eg, wikis and Google Documents) hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and health care. The rapid rise in their use has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation (KT) tools in the health care sector and for an inventory of the factors that affect their use.ObjectiveThrough the Levac six-stage methodology, a scoping review was undertaken to explore the depth and breadth of evidence about the effective, safe, and ethical use of wikis and collaborative writing applications (CWAs) in health care.MethodsMultiple strategies were used to locate studies. Seven scientific databases and 6 grey literature sources were queried for articles on wikis and CWAs published between 2001 and September 16, 2011. In total, 4436 citations and 1921 grey literature items were screened. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, selected eligible studies, and extracted data using a standardized form. We included any paper presenting qualitative or quantitative empirical evidence concerning health care and CWAs. We defined a CWA as any technology that enables the joint and simultaneous editing of a webpage or an online document by many end users. We performed qualitative content analysis to identify the factors that affect the use of CWAs using the Gagnon framework and their effects on health care using the Donabedian framework.ResultsOf the 111 studies included, 4 were experimental, 5 quasi-experimental, 5 observational, 52 case studies, 23 surveys about wiki use, and 22 descriptive studies about the quality of information in wikis. We classified them by theme: patterns of use of CWAs (n=26), quality of information in existing CWAs (n=25), and CWAs as KT tools (n=73). A high prevalence of CWA use (ie, more than 50%) is reported in 58% (7/12) of surveys conducted with health care professionals and students. However, we found only one longitudinal study showing that CWA use is increasing in health care. Moreover, contribution rates remain low and the quality of information contained in different CWAs needs improvement. We identified 48 barriers and 91 facilitators in 4 major themes (factors related to the CWA, users’ knowledge and attitude towards CWAs, human environment, and organizational environment). We also found 57 positive and 23 negative effects that we classified into processes and outcomes.ConclusionsAlthough we found some experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the effectiveness and safety of CWAs as educational and KT interventions, the vast majority of included studies were observational case studies about CWAs being used by health professionals and patients. More primary research is needed to find ways to address the different barriers to their use and to make these applications more useful for different stakeholders.

show abstract

“…Wikis have been used for collaborative writing, but not for development of visual media [16]. In medical research, wikis have been used to support the implementation of an electronic medical record system [17] and to build online catalogues of genetic codes, protein structure [18,19], medical ontology [20], and medical information [21,22]. Use of a wiki platform to ascertain and summarize the preferences of multiple users or in the design of a medical communication tool such as an AAP has not previously been reported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

WikiBuild: A New Online Collaboration Process For Multistakeholder Tool Development and Consensus Building

Gupta¹,

Wan²,

Newton³

et al. 2011

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundProduction of media such as patient education tools requires methods that can integrate multiple stakeholder perspectives. Existing consensus techniques are poorly suited to design of visual media, can be expensive and logistically demanding, and are subject to caveats arising from group dynamics such as participant hierarchies. ObjectiveOur objective was to develop a method that enables multistakeholder tool building while averting these difficulties.MethodsWe developed a wiki-inspired method and tested this through the collaborative design of an asthma action plan (AAP). In the development stage, we developed the Web-based tool by (1) establishing AAP content and format options, (2) building a Web-based application capable of representing each content and format permutation, (3) testing this tool among stakeholders, and (4) revising this tool based on stakeholder feedback. In the wiki stage, groups of participants used the revised tool in three separate 1-week “wiki” periods during which each group collaboratively authored an AAP by making multiple online selections.ResultsIn the development stage, we recruited 16 participants (9/16 male) (4 pulmonologists, 4 primary care physicians, 3 certified asthma educators, and 5 patients) for system testing. The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score for the tool used in testing was 72.2 (SD 10.2). In the wiki stage, we recruited 41 participants (15/41 male) (9 pulmonologists, 6 primary care physicians, 5 certified asthma educators, and 21 patients) from diverse locations. The mean SUS score for the revised tool was 75.9 (SD 19.6). Users made 872, 466, and 599 successful changes to the AAP in weeks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The site was used actively for a mean of 32.0 hours per week, of which 3.1 hours per week (9.7%) constituted synchronous multiuser use (2–4 users at the same time). Participants averaged 23 (SD 33) minutes of login time and made 7.7 (SD 15) changes to the AAP per day. Among participants, 28/35 (80%) were satisfied with the final AAP, and only 3/34 (9%) perceived interstakeholder group hierarchies.ConclusionUse of a wiki-inspired method allowed for effective collaborative design of content and format aspects of an AAP while minimizing logistical requirements, maximizing geographical representation, and mitigating hierarchical group dynamics. Our method faced unique software and hardware challenges, and raises certain questions regarding its effect on group functioning. Potential uses of our method are broad, and further studies are required.

show abstract

RadiologyWiki.org: The Free Radiology Resource That Anyone Can Edit

Cited by 15 publications

References 2 publications

Reviewing social media use by clinicians: Table 1

Reviewing social media use by clinicians: Table 1

Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care: A Scoping Review

WikiBuild: A New Online Collaboration Process For Multistakeholder Tool Development and Consensus Building

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About