Wikis and collaborative writing applications in healthcare: results of a scoping review

Poster
2013 Québec City
Archambault PM1, van de Belt T2, Grajales F3, Faber M4, Kuziemsky C5, Gagnon S6, Bilodeau A7, Rioux S6, Fournier C6, Nadeau C6, Emond M6, Aubin K8, Gold I9, Gagnon M8, Turgeon A10, Heldoorn M11, Poitras J12, Kremer J2, Eysenbach G13, Légaré F14
1Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Canada
2Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division of Reproductive Medicine, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
3IMIA Social Media Working Group, Geneva, Switzerland
4Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Radboud REshape and Innovation Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
5Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada
6Centre de santé et de services sociaux Alphonse-Desjardins (CHAU de Lévis), Lévis, Canada
7Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Québec, Canada
8Faculté des sciences infirmières, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
9Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, Ottawa, Canada
10Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesia, Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
11Federation of Patients and Consumer Organisations in the Netherlands, The Netherlands
12Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Canada
13Centre for eHealth Innovation, Université of Toronto, Canada
14Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CRCHUQ), Québec, Canada

Background:

The rapid rise in the use of collaborative writing applications (CWAs) (eg, wikis, Google Documents, and Google Knol) has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation tools in healthcare.

Objectives:

To explore the depth and breadth of evidence for the use of CWAs in healthcare, and to identify areas that require further systematic reviewing and where more primary research is needed.

Methods:

We performed a scoping review searching PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, EPOC, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, HTAi vortal, Mednar, OpenSIGLE, Google, Bing and Yahoo without any language restrictions, but limited to articles published after 2001. Keywords used were: ‘wiki’, ‘wikis’, ‘Web 2.0, ’ ‘social media, ’ ‘Google Knol,’ ‘Google Docs,’ and ‘collaborative writing applications’. CWAs were defined as any technology enabling joint and simultaneous editing of online documents by many end users. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, selected eligible studies and extracted data using a standardized form built into EPPI-reviewer 4. Papers presenting qualitative or quantitative empirical evidence concerning healthcare and CWAs were included.

Results:

Figure 1 presents our flow chart. Among the 111 included papers, we found 4 experimental studies, 3 quasi-experimental studies, 5 observational studies, 54 case studies, 23 surveys about wiki use and 22 descriptive studies about the quality of information in wikis. Table 1 presents the experimental studies and their results related to the use of CWAs: (1) increased physical activity and improved blood pressure control; (2) better scientific writing skills among health science students; (3) improved medical student self-confidence and communication skills, however worse diagnostic skills; and (4) better nursing leadership skills.

Conclusions:

Although there are many studies about CWAs in healthcare, a formal systematic review still needs to be conducted to further assess their impact on healthcare delivery and inform future clinical trials.
PDF
Flow_chart_poster_1.pdf
Table1forCochraneabstract.pdf