Advertisement

Current HIV/AIDS Reports

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 270–278 | Cite as

Crowdsourcing to Improve HIV and Sexual Health Outcomes: a Scoping Review

  • Weiming Tang
  • Tiarney D. Ritchwood
  • Dan Wu
  • Jason J. Ong
  • Chongyi Wei
  • Juliet Iwelunmor
  • Joseph D. TuckerEmail author
Implementation Science (E Geng, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Implementation Science

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review synthesizes evidence on the use of crowdsourcing to improve HIV/sexual health outcomes.

Recent Findings

We identified 15 studies, including four completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one planned RCT, nine completed observational studies, and one planned observational study. Three of the four RCTs suggested that crowdsourcing is an effective, low-cost approach for improving HIV testing and condom use among key populations. Results from the observational studies revealed diverse applications of crowdsourcing to inform policy, research, and intervention development related to HIV/sexual health services.

Summary

Crowdsourcing can be an effective tool for informing the design and implementation of HIV/sexual health interventions, spurring innovation in sexual health research, and increasing community engagement in sexual health campaigns. More research is needed to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of crowdsourcing interventions, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Keywords

HIV Sexual health Crowdsourcing Quantitative evidence Contests 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jennifer Walker from UNC and SESH members for their contributions to this manuscript. This study received support from the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID 1R01AI114310-01), UNC-South China STD Research Training Center (FIC 1D43TW009532-01), UNC Center for AIDS Research (NIAID 5P30AI050410), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2017YFE0103800), SESH (Social Entrepreneurship to Spur Health) Global, and Mid-career mentoring grant (K24AI143471). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

11904_2019_448_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Rhodes SD, Malow RM, Jolly C. Community-based participatory research: a new and not-so-new approach to HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment. AIDS Educ Prev. 2010;22(3):173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tucker JD, Day S, Tang W, Bayus B. Crowdsourcing in medical research: concepts and applications. PeerJ. 2019;6:In Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haas D, Ansel J, Gu L, Marcus A. Argonaut: macrotask crowdsourcing for complex data processing. Proceed VLDB Endowment. 2015;8(12):1642–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behrend TS, Sharek DJ, Meade AW, Wiebe EN. The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behav Res Methods. 2011;43(3):800–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chunara R, Chhaya V, Bane S, Mekaru SR, Chan EH, Freifeld CC, et al. Online reporting for malaria surveillance using micro-monetary incentives, in urban India 2010-2011. Malar J. 2012;11(1):1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freifeld CC, Chunara R, Mekaru SR, Chan EH, Kass-Hout T, Ayala Iacucci A, et al. Participatory epidemiology: use of mobile phones for community-based health reporting. PLoS Med. 2010;7(12):e1000376.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ong JJ, Bilardi JE, Tucker JD. Wisdom of the crowds: crowd-based development of a logo for a conference using a crowdsourcing contest. Sex Transm Dis. 2017;44(10):630–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mermin J, Fenton KA. The future of HIV prevention in the United States. JAMA. 2012;308(4):347–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    •• TDR. Crowdsourcing contests in health and health research: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Available at: https://www.who.int/tdr/publications/year/2018/crowdsourcing-practical-guide/en/ This WHO/TDR practical guide on crowdsourcing in health and health research provides several examples relevant to HIV. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tang W, Han L, Best J, Zhang Y, Mollan K, Kim J, et al. Crowdsourcing HIV test promotion videos: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial in China. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(11):1436–42.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crequit P, Mansouri G, Benchoufi M, Vivot A, Ravaud P. Mapping of crowdsourcing in health: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(5):e187.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9330.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wazny K. Applications of crowdsourcing in health: an overview. J Glob Health. 2018;8(1):010502.  https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.08.010502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    •• Tang W, Wei C, Cao B, Wu D, Li KT, Lu H, et al. Crowdsourcing to expand HIV testing among men who have sex with men in China: a closed cohort stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2018;15(8):e1002645.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002645 This study used a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a crowdsourced HIV intervention on HIV testing uptake among men who have sex with men (MSM) in eight Chinese cities. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tang W, Mao J, Liu C, Mollan K, Zhang Y, Tang S, et al. Reimagining health communication: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of crowdsourced intervention in China. Sex Transm Dis. 2018.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fitzpatrick T, Zhou K, Cheng Y, Chan P-L, Cui F, Tang W, et al. A crowdsourced intervention to promote hepatitis B and C testing among men who have sex with men in China: study protocol for a nationwide online randomized controlled trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    • Catallozzi M, Ebel SC, Chavez NR, Shearer LS, Mindel A, Rosenthal SL. Understanding perceptions of genital herpes disclosure through analysis of an online video contest. Sex Transm Infect. 2013;89(8):650–2.  https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2013-051027 This study used crowdsourcing to identify lay perspectives on HSV disclosure. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Hildebrand M, Ahumada C, Watson S. CrowdOutAIDS: crowdsourcing youth perspectives for action. Reprod Health Matters. 2013;21(41):57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(13)41687-7 This study used crowdsourcing to identify major priorities and strategic actions regarding HIV among youth. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGregor JA, French JI, Jones J, Perhach M. Crowdsourced analysis of GBS perinatal disease as a sexually transmissible infection (STI) underscores need for GBS vaccine and patient education regarding GBS as an STI to be able to make well-informed sexual practice choices. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41:S147.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shearer LS, Simmons L, Mindel A, Stanberry LR, Rosenthal SL. Reducing the stigma of herpes simplex virus infection: lessons from an online video contest. Sex Health. 2012;9(5):438–44.  https://doi.org/10.1071/sh11188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Winskell K, Enger D. A new way of perceiving the pandemic: the findings from a participatory research process on young Africans’ stories about HIV/AIDS. Cult Health Sex. 2009;11(4):453–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050902736984 This is one of the earliest and largest crowdsourced studies that solicited stories about HIV from young Africans. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang Y, Kim JA, Liu F, Tso LS, Tang W, Wei C, et al. Creative contributory contests to spur innovation in sexual health: 2 cases and a guide for implementation. Sex Transm Dis. 2015;42(11):625–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/olq.0000000000000349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mathews A, Farley S, Blumberg M, Knight K, Hightow-Weidman L, Muessig K, et al. HIV cure research community engagement in North Carolina: a mixed-methods evaluation of a crowdsourcing contest. J Virus Erad. 2017;3(4):223.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Akwara P, Alayon S, Barry S, Lettenmeaier C, David V, Magumba G, et al. Delivery of improved services for health (DISH) project, Uganda. In: The 124th annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. New York; 1996. Available at: https://www.measureevaluation.org/resources/publications/tr-03-14. Accessed 28 May 2019.
  24. 24.
    Avery M. Crowdsourcing for PrEP in Thailand, vol. 22. Amsterdam: World AIDS Conference; 2018.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang C, Mollan KR, Hudgens MG, Tucker JD, Zheng H, Tang W, et al. Generalisability of an online randomised controlled trial: an empirical analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2018;72(2):173–8.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-209976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Winskell K, Beres LK, Hill E, Mbakwem BC, Obyerodhyambo O. Making sense of abstinence: social representations in young Africans’ HIV-related narratives from six countries. Cult Health Sex. 2011;13(8):945–59.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2011.591431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Winskell K, Obyerodhyambo O, Stephenson R. Making sense of condoms: social representations in young people’s HIV-related narratives from six African countries. Soc Sci Med (1982). 2011;72(6):953–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.014. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    My voice my choice. myvoicemychoicecontest.com. Accessed 28 May 2019.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Wu D, Best LL, Stein G, Tang W, Tucker JD, Team HCC. Community participation in a lancet healthy cities in China commission. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(6):e241-e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weiming Tang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Tiarney D. Ritchwood
    • 5
  • Dan Wu
    • 1
  • Jason J. Ong
    • 6
  • Chongyi Wei
    • 7
  • Juliet Iwelunmor
    • 8
  • Joseph D. Tucker
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.University of North Carolina Project-ChinaGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Social Entrepreneurship to Spur Health (SESH)GuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Dermatology HospitalSouthern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  4. 4.School of Public HealthSouthern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  5. 5.Department of Community & Family MedicineDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Faculty of Infectious and Tropical DiseasesLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
  7. 7.Rutgers UniversityBrunswickUSA
  8. 8.Saint Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations