This document summarizes the results of a scoping review on the use of wikis and collaborative writing applications in healthcare. The review identified 88 studies that evaluated barriers, facilitators and impacts of using these applications. Most studies involved genetics/genomics wikis and examined perceived benefits like knowledge sharing and drawbacks like a lack of authoritative content. The review provides insight into how collaborative technologies are being applied and perceived in healthcare settings.

1.
Wikis
and
Collabora>ve
Wri>ng
Applica>ons
in
Health
Care:
Preliminary
Results
of
a
Scoping
Review
Titre du document
Patrick
Michel
Archambault
(1),
Tom
H
Van
de
Belt
(2),
Francisco
J
Grajales
III
(3),
Marjan
J
Faber
(2),
Andrea
Bilodeau
(4),
Catherine
Nadeau
(4),
Simon
Rioux
(4),
Craig
E
Kuziemsky
(5),
Mathieu
Emond
(1),
Cynthia
Fournier
(1),
Gunther
Eysenbach
(6),
Karine
Aubin
(7),
Irving
Gold
(8),
Marie-­‐Pierre
Gagnon
(7),
Alexis
F
Turgeon
(9),
Julien
Poitras
(1),
Jan
A.M.
Kremer
(2),
Marcel
Heldoorn
(10),
France
Légaré
(11)
Auteurs
(1)
Faculté
de
médecine,
Université
Laval,
Quebec,
Canada;
(2)
Radboud
University
Nijmegen
Medical
Centre,
Nijmegen,
Netherlands;
(3)
Faculty
of
Medicine,
University
of
Bri^sh
Columbia,
Vancouver,
Canada;
(4)
Centre
de
santé
et
de
services
sociaux
Alphonse-­‐Desjardins
(CHAU
de
Lévis),
Lévis,
Canada;
(5)
Telfer
School
of
Management,
University
of
Obawa,
Obawa,
Canada;
(6)
University
of
Toronto
and
University
Health
Network,
Toronto,
Canada;
(7)
Faculté
des
sciences
infirmières,
Université
Laval,
Québec,
Canada;
(8)
Associa^on
of
Facul^es
of
Medicine
of
Canada,
Obawa,
Canada;
(9)
Axe
Traumatologie
–
Urgence
–
Soins
Intensifs,
Centre
de
recherche
FRQS
du
CHA
universitaire
de
Québec,
Quebec,
Canada;
(10)
Federa^on
of
Pa^ents
and
Consumer
Organisa^ons
in
the
Netherlands,
Utrecht,
Netherlands;
(11)
Canada
Research
Chair
in
Implementa^on
of
Shared
Decision
Making
in
Primary
Care,
Quebec,
Canada
Background
Ø Figure
1.
Flow
chart
Ø Figure
2.
Field
of
included
studies
Ø Collabora>ve
wri>ng
applica>on
(CWA)
use
in
health
care
is
growing.
Studies
retrieved
from
targeted
databases
medicine
(n=27)
Ø Although
wikis,
Google
Docs
and
similar
CWAs
may
be
useful
in
(n=7234)
Studies
excluded
(n=2797)
-­‐Author
with
“wiki”
in
his/her
name
(n=541)
educa^on
(n=16)
facilita>ng
knowledge
transfer,
no
systema>c
review
has
yet
been
-­‐Published
before
2001
(n=885)
-­‐Duplicates
(n=1371)
nursing
and
other
allied
health
fields
(n=13)
conducted
to
evaluate
their
role
in
knowledge
transla>on
(KT).
pharmacy
(n=10)
Studies
screened
on
>tle
and
abstract
(n=4437)
mental
health
(n=5)
general
health
informa^on
(n=6)
Objec^ves
Studies
excluded
(n=4078)
public
health
(n=3)
-­‐Not
men^oning
wikis,
knol
or
online
Ø To
explore
the
depth
and
breadth
of
evidence
about
the
safe,
effec>ve
library/informa^on
science/medical
informa^cs
(n=3)
collabora^ve
wri^ng
applica^ons
(n=2861)
-­‐Not
related
to
health
field
(n=1059)
den^stry/maxillofacial
surgery
(n=2)
and
ethical
use
of
CWAs
in
health
care.
-­‐Research
protocol
(n=7)
EMS/disaster
management
(n=2)
-­‐Conceptual
framework
(n=6)
Ø Research
ques>on:
What
is
the
extent
of
the
knowledge
concerning
the
-­‐Conference
summary
(n=4)
medical
gene^cs
(n=1)
barriers
to,
the
facilitators
of,
and
the
impacts
of
using
CWAs
as
KT
-­‐Editorial
or
opinion
(n=108)
-­‐Literature
review
(n=33)
interven>ons
in
health
care?
Ø Figure
3.
Types
of
CWAs
in
included
studies
Studies
screened
on
full
text
(n=359)
Methods
Studies
iden>fied
for
further
synthesis
(n=166)
-­‐Gene^cs/genomics
(n=87)
The
following
databases
were
searched
(from
their
crea>on
to
-­‐Biology
(n=33)
Ø Our
protocol
has
been
published
in
JMIR
Research
Protocols
(2012).
-­‐Chemistry
(n=5)
-­‐Library
science
(medical
or
health)
(n=14)
Ø -­‐Medical
informa^cs
(n=12)
-­‐Clinical
trials
and
wikis
(n=10)
09/2011):
PubMed,
Embase,
Cochrane,
CINAHL,
PsychInfo,
Eric
and
-­‐Psychology
of
wiki
users
(n=5)
ProQuest
Disserta>ons
&
Theses.
Ø Search
terms:
“wiki”,
“wikis”,
“web
2.0”,
“social
media”,
“Google
Knol”,
Studies
screened
for
results
(n=193)
“Google
Docs”
and
“collabora>ve
wri>ng
applica>ons”.
Studies
excluded
Ø Ar>cles
were
included
if:
1)
they
studied
the
use
of
wikis,
Google
Docs,
No
results
(n=104)
Google
Knol,
or
any
CWAs;
2)
in
health
care;
and
3)
presented
empiric
Study
pending
transla>on
(not
yet
analysed)
(n=1)
Included
studies
(n=88)
quan>ta>ve
or
qualita>ve
results.
Ø Ar>cles
were
excluded
if
they
only
discussed
blogs,
discussion
forums,
Ø Table
1.
Most
frequently
reported
Barriers/Facilitators
and
or
communi>es
of
prac>ce.
Perceived
Beneficial/Nega>ve
Effects
Ø A
“collabora>ve
wri>ng
applica>on”
was
defined
as
a
category
of
social
Ø Figure
4.
Study
design
of
included
studies
Barriers
Facilitators
Perceived
Perceived
nega>ve
media
that
enables
the
joint
synchronous
and/or
asynchronous
edi>ng
beneficial
effects
effects
of
a
web
page
or
an
online
document
by
many
end-­‐users.
Lack
of
skills
to
use
High
usability
Improves
Informa>on
overload
case
study/
case
report
(n=36)
Ø Due
to
the
large
number
of
cita>ons,
we
decided
to
exclude
papers
wikis
collabora>on/
published
before
2001
(the
year
Wikipedia
was
created)
and
to
focus
communica>on
descrip^ve
quality
assessment
of
wiki
content
(n=21)
our
ini>al
data
extrac>on
on
papers
about
CWAs
that
facilitated
the
Time
constraints
and
Face
to
face
training
Saves
>me
and
Decreases
quality
of
survey
(n=20)
workload
resources
communica>on
clinical
aspects
of
caring
for
pa>ents
or
that
helped
train
clinicians.
Ø Based
on
qualita>ve
content
analysis,
we
charted,
collated,
summarized
cohort/
cross-­‐sec^onal/
case-­‐control
study
(n=4)
and
reported
the
results.
Lack
of
familiarity
with
Human
resources
(IT
Higher
quality
of
Allows
personal
randomised
controlled
trial
(n=3)
wikis
support)
classroom
views
to
be
Results
assignments
overrepresented
controlled
before-­‐and-­‐aler
trial
(n=3)
Ø Figure
1
presents
the
descrip>on
of
the
excluded
and
included
studies.
Poor
validity/scien>fic
Incen>ves
Increases
Faster
dissemina>on
controlled
clinical
trial
(n=1)
quality
of
the
(authorship/financial/ knowledge
of
poorly
validated
Ø 88
studies
have
been
included
for
full-­‐text
analysis
(Figure
1).
informa>on
social
recogni>on)
informa>on
and
Ø We
have
iden>fied
many
areas
of
the
literature
that
will
require
further
medical
prac>ces
not
supported
by
synthesis.
In
par>cular,
the
field
of
gene>cs
and
genomics
research
has
evidence
Conclusion
generated
many
publica>ons
(n=87).
Poor
usability
Trialability
Increases
Loss
of
autonomy
–
Ø Medicine
was
the
field
that
generated
the
most
research
about
CWAs
confidence/
feeling
of
being
Ø There
is
a
need
for
adequately
designed
(Figure
2)
in
the
clinical
area
of
health
care.
engagement/
monitored
primary
research
assessing
the
impact
of
using
Ø Wikis
are
the
most
studied
CWA
(Figure
3).
ownership
wikis
and
CWAs
to
improve
knowledge
Ø Few
studies
use
a
rigorous
study
design
(only
3
RCTs)
(Figure
4).
Fear
of
being
the
first
High
quality
Connects
Repe>>ve
content
transla>on
in
health
care.
to
contribute
informa>on
geographically
Ø There
are
many
case
reports
presen>ng
the
perceived
beneficial
effects
dispersed
people
Ø The
appropriate
experimental
design
needs
to
about
the
use
of
CWAs
in
health
care
(Table
1).
Few
papers
present
Confiden>ality/privacy
Low
cost
of
sonware
Decreases
Creates
conflict
–
be
determined.
perceived
nega>ve
effects,
however
many
barriers
to
their
use
exist.
concerns
duplica>on
of
work
edi>ng
wars
Ø Many
barriers
will
need
to
be
addressed
Ø No
study
has
explored
how
CWAs
influence
the
different
phases
in
the
before
conduc>ng
such
a
study.
knowledge
to
ac>on
process.
Email:
patrick.m.archambault@gmail.com
h4p://decision.chaire.fmed.ulaval.ca