Patrick M Archambault1,2,3,4, Tom H van de Belt5, Craig Kuziemsky6, Ariane Plaisance2, Audrey Dupuis2,7, Carrie A McGinn2, Rebecca Francois2, Marie-Pierre Gagnon3,8, Alexis F Turgeon3,4, Tanya Horsley9, William Witteman10, Julien Poitras1,2,3, Jean Lapointe1,2, Kevin Brand6, Jean Lachaine11, France Légaré1,3. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada. 2. Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches, Centre hospitalier affilié universitaire Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis, Lévis, QC, Canada. 3. Population Health and Optimal Health Practice Research Unit, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada. 5. Radboud REshape Innovation Center, Radboud University Medical Center, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 6. Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1N 6N5. 7. Department of Information and Communication, Université Laval, 1055, avenue du Séminaire, Québec City, QC, Canada, G1V0A6. 8. Faculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada. 9. Research Unit, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 774 Echo Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1S 5N8. 10. Clinical and Evaluative Research Unit, CHU de Québec Research Center, Université Laval, 45 Leclerc - Room D6-729, Québec City, QC, Canada, G1L 3L5. 11. Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, QC, Canada, H3C 3J7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Collaborative writing applications (CWAs), such as wikis and Google Documents, hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and healthcare. Although a growing body of literature indicates that CWAs could have positive effects on healthcare, such as improved collaboration, behavioural change, learning, knowledge management, and adaptation of knowledge to local context, this has never been assessed systematically. Moreover, several questions regarding safety, reliability, and legal aspects exist. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to (1) assess the effects of the use of CWAs on process (including the behaviour of healthcare professionals) and patient outcomes, (2) critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the use of resources, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with CWAs to improve professional practices and patient outcomes, and (3) explore the effects of different CWA features (e.g. open versus closed) and different implementation factors (e.g. the presence of a moderator) on process and patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 11 other electronic databases. We searched the grey literature, two trial registries, CWA websites, individual journals, and conference proceedings. We also contacted authors and experts in the field. We did not apply date or language limits. We searched for published literature to August 2016, and grey literature to September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and repeated measures studies (RMS), in which CWAs were used as an intervention to improve the process of care, patient outcomes, or healthcare costs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Teams of two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, and when consensus was not reached, a third review author was consulted. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 11,993 studies identified from the electronic database searches and 346 studies from grey literature sources. We analysed the full text of 99 studies. None of the studies met the eligibility criteria; two potentially relevant studies are ongoing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While there is a high number of published studies about CWAs, indicating that this is an active field of research, additional studies using rigorous experimental designs are needed to assess their impact and cost-effectiveness on process and patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Collaborative writing applications (CWAs), such as wikis and Google Documents, hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and healthcare. Although a growing body of literature indicates that CWAs could have positive effects on healthcare, such as improved collaboration, behavioural change, learning, knowledge management, and adaptation of knowledge to local context, this has never been assessed systematically. Moreover, several questions regarding safety, reliability, and legal aspects exist. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to (1) assess the effects of the use of CWAs on process (including the behaviour of healthcare professionals) and patient outcomes, (2) critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the use of resources, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with CWAs to improve professional practices and patient outcomes, and (3) explore the effects of different CWA features (e.g. open versus closed) and different implementation factors (e.g. the presence of a moderator) on process and patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 11 other electronic databases. We searched the grey literature, two trial registries, CWA websites, individual journals, and conference proceedings. We also contacted authors and experts in the field. We did not apply date or language limits. We searched for published literature to August 2016, and grey literature to September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and repeated measures studies (RMS), in which CWAs were used as an intervention to improve the process of care, patient outcomes, or healthcare costs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Teams of two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, and when consensus was not reached, a third review author was consulted. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 11,993 studies identified from the electronic database searches and 346 studies from grey literature sources. We analysed the full text of 99 studies. None of the studies met the eligibility criteria; two potentially relevant studies are ongoing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While there is a high number of published studies about CWAs, indicating that this is an active field of research, additional studies using rigorous experimental designs are needed to assess their impact and cost-effectiveness on process and patient outcomes.
Authors: T Brown; M Findlay; J von Dincklage; W Davidson; J Hill; E Isenring; B Talwar; K Bell; N Kiss; R Kurmis; J Loeliger; A Sandison; K Taylor; J Bauer Journal: J Hum Nutr Diet Date: 2013-01-21 Impact factor: 3.089
Authors: Christopher J Seebregts; Burke W Mamlin; Paul G Biondich; Hamish S F Fraser; Benjamin A Wolfe; Darius Jazayeri; Christian Allen; Justin Miranda; Elaine Baker; Nicholas Musinguzi; Daniel Kayiwa; Carl Fourie; Neal Lesh; Andrew Kanter; Constantin T Yiannoutsos; Christopher Bailey Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Sallie-Anne Pearson; Annette Moxey; Jane Robertson; Isla Hains; Margaret Williamson; James Reeve; David Newby Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Patrick M Archambault; Tom H van de Belt; Francisco J Grajales; Marjan J Faber; Craig E Kuziemsky; Susie Gagnon; Andrea Bilodeau; Simon Rioux; Willianne L D M Nelen; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Alexis F Turgeon; Karine Aubin; Irving Gold; Julien Poitras; Gunther Eysenbach; Jan A M Kremer; France Légaré Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Michael A Scaffidi; Rishad Khan; Christopher Wang; Daniela Keren; Cindy Tsui; Ankit Garg; Simarjeet Brar; Kamesha Valoo; Michael Bonert; Jacob F de Wolff; James Heilman; Samir C Grover Journal: JMIR Med Educ Date: 2017-10-31