Evolution of Wikipedia's medical content: past, present and future

Strategies for crowdsourcing hearing health information: a comparative study of educational programs and volunteer-based campaigns on Wikimedia

BACKGROUND

Several health institutions developed strategies to improve health content on Wikimedia platforms given their unparalleled reach. The objective of this study was to compare an online volunteer-based Wikimedia outreach campaign with university course Wikipedia assignments (both focused on improving hearing health content in Wikimedia's public digital knowledge archives), in terms of the reach of the contributions and the extent of the participants' input. A secondary objective was to examine the feasibility and the implementation of the different strategies.

METHODS

The research team partnered for the (1) coordination of improvements in hearing and healthcare content through educational programs using Wikimedia platforms, (2) participation in the global campaign Wiki4WorldHearingDay2023 and (3) evaluation of the proposed strategies. Metrics used in the comparison of the two strategies included the number of articles edited, number of views of the edited articles (as reach) and the extent of edits, captured as the number of words. The feasibility evaluation included assessing recruitment success and the implementation of the proposed plan among faculty, students from various university programs, and volunteers representing different constituencies.

RESULTS

The effort increased the availability of quality plain language information on hearing conditions and hearing care. Both strategies demonstrated to be feasible by their success in recruiting participants who contributed to the effort and by measurable outputs as edits. The contribution of content to Wikimedia platforms as part of education activities provided a more robust result. Wiki4WorldHearingDay2023 145 participants (78 from educational programs) contributed 167,000 words, 258 + references and 140 images to 322 Wikipedia articles (283 existing and 39 new ones), which were viewed 16.5 million times. Contributions occurred in six languages. Edits in Portuguese, mainly by those involved in educational programs, led the number of articles (226 or 70.2%) that were expanded or created during the 5-month tracking period.

CONCLUSIONS

The elements that contributed to the success of the studied strategies include an impact topic, coordination with educational programs, international multidisciplinary collaborations, the dissemination of the initiative in several platforms, connection with a robust local Wikimedia affiliate, and the use of a technical infrastructure that provides metrics and coordination mechanisms.

Quality of Male and Female Medical Content on English-Language Wikipedia: Quantitative Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

Wikipedia is the largest free online encyclopedia and the seventh most visited website worldwide, containing >45,000 freely accessible English-language medical articles accessed nearly 1.6 billion times annually. Concerns have been expressed about the balance of content related to biological sex on Wikipedia.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to categorize the top 1000 most-read (most popular) English-language Wikipedia health articles for June 2019 according to the relevance of the article topic to each sex and quality.

METHODS

In the first step, Wikipedia articles were identified using WikiProject Medicine Popular Pages. These were analyzed on 13 factors, including total views, article quality, and total number of references. In the second step, 2 general medical textbooks were used as comparators to assess whether Wikipedia's spread of articles was typical compared to the general medical coverage. According to the article's content, we proposed criteria with 5 categories: 1="exclusively female," 2="predominantly female but can also affect male individuals," 3="not sex specific or neutral," 4=predominantly male but can affect female individuals," and 5="exclusively male."

RESULTS

Of the 1000 Wikipedia health articles, 933 (93.3%) were not sex specific and 67 (6.7%) were sex specific. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of reads per month between the sex-specific and non-sex-specific articles (P=.29). Coverage of female topics was higher (50/1000, 5%) than male topics (17/1000, 1.7%; this difference was also observed for the 2 medical textbooks, in which 90.2% (2330/2584) of content was not sex specific, female topics accounted for 8.1% (209/2584), and male topics for accounted for 1.7% (45/2584; statistically significant difference; Fisher exact test P=.03). Female-category articles were ranked higher on the Wikipedia medical topic importance list (top, high, or mid importance) than male-category articles (borderline statistical significance; Fisher exact test P=.05). Female articles had a higher number of total and unique references; a slightly higher number of page watchers, pictures, and available languages; and lower number of edits than male articles (all were statistically nonsignificant).

CONCLUSIONS

Across several metrics, a sample of popular Wikipedia health-related articles for both sexes had comparable quality. Wikipedia had a lower number of female articles and a higher number of neutral articles relative to the 2 medical textbooks. These differences were small, but statistically significant. Higher exclusively female coverage, compared to exclusively male coverage, in Wikipedia articles was similar to the 2 medical textbooks and can be explained by inclusion of sections on obstetrics and gynecology. This is unlike the imbalance seen among biographies of living people, in which approximately 77.6% pertain to male individuals. Although this study included a small sample of articles, the spread of Wikipedia articles may reflect the readership and the population's content consumption at a given time. Further study of a larger sample of Wikipedia articles would be valuable.

Assessment of medical information on irritable bowel syndrome information in Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia: comparative study

Background

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder (FGID) with heterogeneous clinical presentations. There are no clear testing parameters for its diagnosis, and the complex pathophysiology of IBS and the limited time that doctors have to spend with patients makes it difficult to adequately educate patients in the outpatient setting. An increased awareness of IBS means that patients are more likely to self-diagnose and self-manage IBS based on their own symptoms. These factors may make patients more likely to turn to Internet resources. Wikipedia is the most popular online encyclopedia among English-speaking users, with numerous validations. However, in Mandarin-speaking regions, the Baidu Encyclopedia is most commonly used. There have been no studies on the reliability, readability, and objectivity of IBS information on the two sites. This is an urgent issue as these platforms are accessed by approximately 1.45 billion people.

Objective

We compared the IBS content on Wikipedia (in English) and Baidu Baike (in Chinese), two online encyclopedias, in terms of reliability, readability, and objectivity.

Methods

The Baidu Encyclopedia (in Chinese) and Wikipedia (in English) were evaluated based on the Rome IV IBS definitions and diagnoses. All possible synonyms and derivatives for IBS and IBS-related FGIDs were screened and identified. Two gastroenterology experts evaluated the scores of articles for both sites using the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association scoring system (JAMA), and the Global Quality Score (GQS).

Results

Wikipedia scored higher overall with DISCERN (p < .0001), JAMA (p < .0001) and GQS (p < .05) than the Baidu Encyclopedia. Specifically, Wikipedia scored higher in DISCERN Section 1 (p < .0001), DISCERN Section 2 (p < .01), DISCERN Section 3 (p < .001), and the General DISCERN score (p < .0001) than the Baidu Encyclopedia. Both sites had low DISCERN Section 2 scores (p = .18). Wikipedia also had a larger percentage of high quality scores in total DISCERN, DISCERN Section 1, and DISCERN Section 3 (p < .0001, P < .0001, P < .0004, respectively, based on the above 3 (60%) rule).

Conclusions

Wikipedia provides more reliable, higher quality, and more objective IBS-related health information than the Baidu Encyclopedia. However, there should be improvements in the information quality for both sites. Medical professionals and institutions should collaborate with these online platforms to offer better health information for IBS.

Citations in Wikipedia for understanding research reach

Objective

Wikipedia is the most frequently accessed online health information resource and is well positioned as a valuable tool for public health communication and knowledge translation. The authors aimed to explore their institution's health and medical research reach by analyzing its presence in Wikipedia articles.

Methods

In October 2022, a comprehensive database search was constructed in PubMed to retrieve clinical evidence syntheses published by at least one author affiliated with McMaster University from 2017 to 2022, inclusive. Altmetric Explorer was queried using PubMed Identifiers and article titles to access metadata and Wikipedia citation data. 3,582 health evidence syntheses from at least one McMaster University affiliated author were analyzed.

Results

Six percent (n=219) of health evidence syntheses from the authors' institution were cited 568 times in 524 unique Wikipedia articles across 28 different language editions. 45% of citations appeared in English Wikipedia, suggesting a broad global reach for the institutions' research outputs. When adjusted for open access publications, 8% of McMaster University's health evidence syntheses appear in Wikipedia.

Conclusion

Altmetric Explorer is a valuable tool for exploring the reach of an institution's research outputs. Isolating Altmetric data to focus on Wikipedia citations has value for any institution wishing to gain more insight into the global, community-level reach of its contributions to the latest health and medical evidence.

A Study on User-Oriented Subjects of Child Abuse on Wikipedia: Temporal Analysis of Wikipedia History Versions and Traffic Data

BACKGROUND

Many people turn to online open encyclopedias such as Wikipedia to seek knowledge about child abuse. However, the information available on this website is often disorganized and incomplete.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to analyze Wikipedia's coverage of child abuse and provide a more accessible way for users to browse child abuse-related content. The study explored the main themes and subjects related to child abuse on Wikipedia and proposed a multilayer user-oriented subject schema from the general users' perspective.

METHODS

The knowledge of child abuse on Wikipedia is presented in the child abuse-related articles on it. The study analyzed child abuse-related articles on Wikipedia, examining their history versions and yearly page views data to reveal the evolution of content and popularity. The themes and subjects were identified from the articles' text using the open coding, self-organizing map, and n-gram approaches. The subjects in different periods were compared to reveal changes in content.

RESULTS

This study collected and investigated 241 associated Wikipedia articles and their history versions and traffic data. Four facets were identified: (1) maltreatment behavior (n=118, 48.9%); (2) people and environment (n=28, 11.6%); (3) problems and risks (n=33, 13.7%); and (4) protection and support (n=62, 25.7%). A total of 8 themes and 51 subjects were generated from the text, and a user-oriented subject schema linking the facets, themes, subjects, and articles was created. Maltreatment behavior (number of total views = 1.15 × 10⁸) was the most popular facet viewed by users, while people and environment (number of total views = 2.42 × 10⁷) was the least popular. The popularity of child abuse increased from 2010 to 2014 but decreased after that.

CONCLUSIONS

The user-oriented subject schema provides an easier way for users to seek information and learn about child abuse. The knowledge of child abuse on Wikipedia covers the harms done to children, the problems caused by child abuse, the protection of children, and the people involved in child abuse. However, there was an inconsistency between the interests of general users and Wikipedia editors, and the child abuse knowledge on Wikipedia was found to be deficient, lacking content about typical child abuse types. To meet users' needs, health information creators need to generate more information to fill the knowledge gap.

Wikipedia page views for health research: a review

Wikipedia is an open-source online encyclopedia and one of the most-read sources of online health information. Likewise, Wikipedia page views have also been analyzed to inform public health services and policies. The present review analyzed 29 studies utilizing Wikipedia page views for health research. Most reviewed studies were published in recent years and emanated from high-income countries. Together with Wikipedia page views, most studies also used data from other internet sources, such as Google, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit. The reviewed studies also explored various non-communicable diseases, infectious diseases, and health interventions to describe changes in the utilization of online health information from Wikipedia, to examine the effect of public events on public interest and information usage about health-related Wikipedia pages, to estimate and predict the incidence and prevalence of diseases, to predict data from other internet data sources, to evaluate the effectiveness of health education activities, and to explore the evolution of a health topic. Given some of the limitations in replicating some of the reviewed studies, future research can specify the specific Wikipedia page or pages analyzed, the language of the Wikipedia pages examined, dates of data collection, dates explored, type of data, and whether page views were limited to Internet users and whether web crawlers and redirects to the Wikipedia page were included. Future research can also explore public interest in other commonly read health topics available in Wikipedia, develop Wikipedia-based models that can be used to predict disease incidence and improve Wikipedia-based health education activities.

Resources for the Assessment and Treatment of Substance Use Disorder in Adolescents

Substance Use Disorder (SUD) is understood as the persistent use of substances to the detriment of the individual's livelihood and wellness. SUD can have serious mental, physical, and social ramifications if not properly addressed. Though SUD can develop at any age, it is especially important to address in adolescents, given rising prevalence of certain substances (e.g. cannabis) in that age group and poor prognosis associated with early-onset SUD.[1][2] Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health show the lifetime use of illicit drugs in people ages 12-17 is 20.9%.[3] The same survey found the rate of Substance Use Disorder in the past year for people ages 12-17 who used illicit drugs or alcohol to be 6.3% in 2020.[3] This paper is intended for clinicians and lay people to gain a deeper understanding of SUD in adolescents, particularly relating to alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, and opioids. Though alcohol, cannabis, and nicotine are the substances most commonly used by this age demographic nationally,[4] opioid use – and resulting deaths – have been on the rise. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), opioids were connected to about 75% of the nearly 92,000 drug deaths in 2020.[5] Beyond significant death rates in the general population, recent spikes in adolescent death rate tied to the synthetic opioid fentanyl – which held a relatively stable death rate from 2010 to 2019 until seeing a 94% increase from 2019 to 2020 and additional 20% increase to 2021 - warrants inquiry into opioids for this population.[6] Each of these substances can have adverse, long-lasting effects on health if not managed properly, resulting in seriously compromised lifelong wellbeing.[7] This article explores SUD prevalence and reviews diagnostic criteria in relation to adolescence, including a synopsis of changes in SUD classification between the DSM-IV and DSM-5 and discussion of ICD-11 and the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) as a basis for research related to substance use. Effective assessment and consideration of co-occurring disorders are covered as well. Although the prognosis of SUD varies by an individual's environment and circumstances, a modal developmental course for SUD is discussed. Finally, a curated list of nationally recognized resources including hotlines, treatment locators, informational sites, and support groups is provided, along with tools to compile local resources. By addressing these aspects of adolescent SUD, the research team offers a broader view of its prevalence in the United States, key warning signs and comorbidities, and possible assessments and treatments for adolescents with SUD.

Using logical constraints to validate statistical information about disease outbreaks in collaborative knowledge graphs: the case of COVID-19 epidemiology in Wikidata

Urgent global research demands real-time dissemination of precise data. Wikidata, a collaborative and openly licensed knowledge graph available in RDF format, provides an ideal forum for exchanging structured data that can be verified and consolidated using validation schemas and bot edits. In this research article, we catalog an automatable task set necessary to assess and validate the portion of Wikidata relating to the COVID-19 epidemiology. These tasks assess statistical data and are implemented in SPARQL, a query language for semantic databases. We demonstrate the efficiency of our methods for evaluating structured non-relational information on COVID-19 in Wikidata, and its applicability in collaborative ontologies and knowledge graphs more broadly. We show the advantages and limitations of our proposed approach by comparing it to the features of other methods for the validation of linked web data as revealed by previous research.

Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications

Article-level measures of publication impact (alternative metrics or altmetrics) can help authors and other stakeholders assess engagement with their research and the success of their communication efforts. The wide variety of altmetrics can make interpretation and comparative assessment difficult; available summary tools are either narrowly focused or do not reflect the differing values of metrics from a stakeholder perspective. We created the EMPIRE (EMpirical Publication Impact and Reach Evaluation) Index, a value-based, multi-component metric framework for medical publications. Metric weighting and grouping were informed by a statistical analysis of 2891 Phase III clinical trial publications and by a panel of stakeholders who provided value assessments. The EMPIRE Index comprises three component scores (social, scholarly, and societal impact), each incorporating related altmetrics indicating a different aspect of engagement with the publication. These are averaged to provide a total impact score and benchmarked so that a score of 100 equals the mean scores of Phase III clinical trial publications in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2016. Predictor metrics are defined to estimate likely long-term impact. The social impact component correlated strongly with the Altmetric Attention Score and the scholarly impact component correlated modestly with CiteScore, with the societal impact component providing unique insights. Analysis of fresh metrics collected 1 year after the initial dataset, including an independent sample, showed that scholarly and societal impact scores continued to increase, whereas social impact scores did not. Analysis of NEJM ‘notable articles’ showed that observational studies had the highest total impact and component scores, except for societal impact, for which surgical studies had the highest score. The EMPIRE Index provides a richer assessment of publication value than standalone traditional and alternative metrics and may enable medical researchers to assess the impact of publications easily and to understand what characterizes impactful research.

Library instruction and Wikipedia: investigating students' perceived information literacy, lifelong learning, and social responsibility through Wikipedia editing

Objectives:

This article presents a multiyear pilot study delineating practical challenges, solutions, and lessons learned from Wikipedia editing experiences with first-year medical students at the John A. Burns School of Medicine at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. The purpose of our project was to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of Wikipedia editing to improve information literacy and lifelong learning skills and to investigate aspects of social responsibility in first-year medical students.

Methods:

Lessons were provided through a combination of in-person and online instruction via the WikiEdu learning management system (LMS). Students next selected a health-related Wikipedia article to edit. After the editing experience, structural completeness data were collected from the WikiEdu LMS. Feedback was collected via an anonymous retrospective pre-post survey to assess the students' attitudes toward their perceived information literacy skills and the social responsibility of improving Wikipedia articles. Nonparametric tests were conducted to compare pre versus post outcomes.

Results:

Fifty-seven (79%) participants in the 2018 cohort and forty-nine (64%) participants in the 2019 cohort completed the retrospective pre-post survey. In both cohorts, respondents showed statistically significant increases (p<.05) in self-rating of all ten domains of information literacy and social responsibility after completing the program.

Conclusions:

This study showed that medical students are competent editors of Wikipedia and that their contributions improve both the quality of the articles and their own perceived information literacy. Additionally, editing medicine-related articles provides an opportunity to build students' social responsibility by improving content on an open platform that reaches millions each day.

Intercessory Rote Prayer, Life Longevity and the Mortality of Roman Catholic Bishops: An Exploratory Study

Based on a computational analysis of a large dataset, this study explores if there is a significant longevity effect of intercessory prayer for a named individual's well-being, if he receives a very high number of prayers per annum for an extended period. We relied on an observational cohort study, based on data from 1988 to 2018, including 857 Roman Catholic bishops, 500 Catholic priests, and 3038 male academics from six countries. We measured the covariance of the mean length of life, controlled for nationality. It was found that there is a main effect for occupation F(2, 4391) = 4.07, p = 0.017, η_p² = 0.002, with pairwise comparisons indicating significant differences between the mean life duration of bishops (M = 30,489) and of priests (M = 29,894), but none between the academic teachers (M = 30,147) and either of the other groups. A comparison analysis between bishops from the largest and the smallest dioceses showed no significant difference t(67.31) = 1.61, p = 0.11. The first analysis proved that bishops live longer than priests, but due to a marginal effect size this result should be treated with caution. No difference was found between the mean length of life of bishops from the largest and the smallest dioceses.

Wikipedia in Health Professional Schools: from an Opponent to an Ally

As an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia is the world's largest reference Web site, with 1.7 billion visits per month. Given how easy it is to access and read, students use Wikipedia globally, despite most faculty members' admonitions. Since 2013, health professional schools worldwide have incorporated Wiki-editing into their formal curricula. These courses impact students by (1) strengthening their ability to evaluate evidence-based content and (2) multiplying their contributions to society through improvements to Wikipedia articles accessed by millions. We showcase several models of incorporating Wikipedia-editing assignments into health professions education worldwide. These successful initiatives can be replicated everywhere.

Expanding Reach of Occupational Health Knowledge: Contributing Subject-Matter Expertise to Wikipedia as a Class Assignment

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and several university programs have collaborated on a large effort to expand and improve occupational safety and health content in Wikipedia using a platform developed by Wiki Education. This article describes the initiative, student contributions, and evaluations of this effort by instructors from two universities between 2016 and 2020. The Wiki Education platform allowed instructors to set timelines and track students’ progress throughout the semester while students accessed training to best expand health content in Wikipedia. Students chose topics in occupational health based on their interests and by a set of topics deemed as a priority by the “WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health.” Students’ contributions were peer-reviewed by instructors, NIOSH Wikipedians-in-Residence, and traditional Wikipedians. Students presented their projects in class at the end of the semester. Students from both schools expanded 55 articles, created 8 new articles, and translated 2 articles to Spanish, adding 1270 references; these articles were viewed over 8 million times by May 2020. Feedback received from the implementation suggested that students learned about science communication and digital literacy—providing valuable content on occupational health while reducing misinformation in the public domain. The process of identifying and addressing gaps in occupational health in Wikipedia requires participation and engagement toward improving access to information that otherwise would be restricted to the scientific literature, often behind a paywall. The Wikipedia assignment proved to be an engaging approach for instruction and information literacy. It helped students improve their science communication skills and digital literacy, tools that are likely to be critical for successful communication of science in their future careers.

Ecology of the digital world of Wikipedia

Wikipedia, a paradigmatic example of online knowledge space is organized in a collaborative, bottom-up way with voluntary contributions, yet it maintains a level of reliability comparable to that of traditional encyclopedias. The lack of selected professional writers and editors makes the judgement about quality and trustworthiness of the articles a real challenge. Here we show that a self-consistent metrics for the network defined by the edit records captures well the character of editors’ activity and the articles’ level of complexity. Using our metrics, one can better identify the human-labeled high-quality articles, e.g., “featured” ones, and differentiate them from the popular and controversial articles. Furthermore, the dynamics of the editor-article system is also well captured by the metrics, revealing the evolutionary pathways of articles and diverse roles of editors. We demonstrate that the collective effort of the editors indeed drives to the direction of article improvement.

Wikipedia: an unexplored resource for understanding consumer health information behaviour in library and information science scholarship

Purpose

To date, health information behaviour (HIB) models have not been applied to an exploration of Wikipedia as a consumer health information resource. Wikipedia has been situated and is well established as a valuable resource for the general layperson wishing to learn more about their health or the health of a loved one. This paper aims to identify an approach to exploring the role of Wikipedia in consumer health information behaviour (CHIB) that is grounded in a conceptual framework from the library and information science (LIS) discipline.

Design/methodology/approach

The author draws on current HIB models and relevant theories from existing LIS literature and applies them to propose a new definition of CHIB. The author uses this definition to frame Wikipedia as an unexplored consumer health information resource in the LIS scholarship and suggests future directions for placing such investigations within a conceptual framework from LIS.

Findings

The paper finds that Longo's expanded conceptual model of health information-seeking behaviour (ECMHISB) could be valuable and useful for the exploration of CHIB in relation to Wikipedia's health and medical content. Due to Wikipedia's online nature, research framed by these models must acknowledge and take under consideration the digital divide phenomenon and various factors that influence an individual's place within it.

Research limitations/implications

This work builds a foundation upon which future research into the role of Wikipedia's health and medical content in CHIB can be grounded. Using Longo's model, future research might provide insight into who Wikipedia is helping and who it has left behind. LIS scholars, practicing health librarians and perhaps health workers stand to gain a deeper understanding of the potential influence of Wikipedia's health information on its consumers.

Originality/value

For LIS scholars, this paper is novel in the fact that a HIB model has not yet been applied to the study of Wikipedia's health content. This paper provides a foundation for this research.

Assessing Public Interest Based on Wikipedia's Most Visited Medical Articles During the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak: Search Trends Analysis

Background

In the current era of widespread access to the internet, we can monitor public interest in a topic via information-targeted web browsing. We sought to provide direct proof of the global population’s altered use of Wikipedia medical knowledge resulting from the new COVID-19 pandemic and related global restrictions.

Objective

We aimed to identify temporal search trends and quantify changes in access to Wikipedia Medicine Project articles that were related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of medical articles across nine language versions of Wikipedia and country-specific statistics for registered COVID-19 deaths. The observed patterns were compared to a forecast model of Wikipedia use, which was trained on data from 2015 to 2019. The model comprehensively analyzed specific articles and similarities between access count data from before (ie, several years prior) and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Wikipedia articles that were linked to those directly associated with the pandemic were evaluated in terms of degrees of separation and analyzed to identify similarities in access counts. We assessed the correlation between article access counts and the number of diagnosed COVID-19 cases and deaths to identify factors that drove interest in these articles and shifts in public interest during the subsequent phases of the pandemic.

Results

We observed a significant (P<.001) increase in the number of entries on Wikipedia medical articles during the pandemic period. The increased interest in COVID-19–related articles temporally correlated with the number of global COVID-19 deaths and consistently correlated with the number of region-specific COVID-19 deaths. Articles with low degrees of separation were significantly similar (P<.001) in terms of access patterns that were indicative of information-seeking patterns.

Conclusions

The analysis of Wikipedia medical article popularity could be a viable method for epidemiologic surveillance, as it provides important information about the reasons behind public attention and factors that sustain public interest in the long term. Moreover, Wikipedia users can potentially be directed to credible and valuable information sources that are linked with the most prominent articles.

Integrating Wikipedia editing into health professions education: a curricular inventory and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia read by millions seeking medical information. To provide health professions students with skills to critically assess, edit, and improve Wikipedia's medical content, a skillset aligned with evidence-based medicine (EBM), Wikipedia courses have been integrated into health professions schools' curriculum. This literature review and curricular inventory of Wikipedia educational initiatives provides an overview of current approaches and identifies directions for future initiatives and research.

METHODS

Five databases were searched for articles describing educational interventions to train health professional students to edit Wikipedia. Course dashboards, maintained by Wiki Education (Wiki Edu), were searched for curricular materials. From these sources, key details were extracted and synthesized, including student and instructor type, course content, educational methods, and student outcomes.

RESULTS

Six articles and 27 dashboards reported courses offered between 2015 and 2019. Courses were predominantly offered to medical and nursing students. Instructors delivered content via videos, live lectures, and online interactive modules. Course content included logistics of Wikipedia editing, EBM skills, and health literacy. All courses included assignments requiring students to edit Wikipedia independently or in groups. Limited details on assessment of student learning were available.

DISCUSSION

A small but growing number of schools are training health professions education students to improve Wikipedia's medical content. Course details are available on Wiki Edu dashboards and, to a lesser extent, in peer-reviewed publications. While more needs to be done in conducting and sharing assessment of student learning, integrating Wikipedia into health professions education has potential to facilitate learning of EBM and communication skills, improve Wikipedia's online content, and engage students with an autonomous environment while learning. Future considerations should include a thorough assessment of student learning and practices, a final review of student edits to ensure they follow Wikipedia's guidelines and are written in clear language, and improved sharing of teaching resources by instructors.

Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Wikipedia's health content is the most frequently visited resource for health information on the internet. While the literature provides strong evidence for its high usage, a comprehensive literature review of Wikipedia's role within the health context has not yet been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed, published literature to learn what the existing body of literature says about Wikipedia as a health information resource and what publication trends exist, if any.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search in OVID Medline, OVID Embase, CINAHL, LISTA, Wilson's Web, AMED, and Web of Science was performed. Through a two-stage screening process, records were excluded if: Wikipedia was not a major or exclusive focus of the article; Wikipedia was not discussed within the context of a health or medical topic; the article was not available in English, the article was irretrievable, or; the article was a letter, commentary, editorial, or popular media article.

RESULTS

89 articles and conference proceedings were selected for inclusion in the review. Four categories of literature emerged: 1) studies that situate Wikipedia as a health information resource; 2) investigations into the quality of Wikipedia, 3) explorations of the utility of Wikipedia in education, and 4) studies that demonstrate the utility of Wikipedia in research.

CONCLUSION

The literature positions Wikipedia as a prominent health information resource in various contexts for the public, patients, students, and practitioners seeking health information online. Wikipedia's health content is accessed frequently, and its pages regularly rank highly in Google search results. While Wikipedia itself is well into its second decade, the academic discourse around Wikipedia within the context of health is still young and the academic literature is limited when attempts are made to understand Wikipedia as a health information resource. Possibilities for future research will be discussed.

DISNET: a framework for extracting phenotypic disease information from public sources

Background

Within the global endeavour of improving population health, one major challenge is the identification and integration of medical knowledge spread through several information sources. The creation of a comprehensive dataset of diseases and their clinical manifestations based on information from public sources is an interesting approach that allows one not only to complement and merge medical knowledge but also to increase it and thereby to interconnect existing data and analyse and relate diseases to each other. In this paper, we present DISNET (http://disnet.ctb.upm.es/), a web-based system designed to periodically extract the knowledge from signs and symptoms retrieved from medical databases, and to enable the creation of customisable disease networks.

Methods

We here present the main features of the DISNET system. We describe how information on diseases and their phenotypic manifestations is extracted from Wikipedia and PubMed websites; specifically, texts from these sources are processed through a combination of text mining and natural language processing techniques.

Results

We further present the validation of our system on Wikipedia and PubMed texts, obtaining the relevant accuracy. The final output includes the creation of a comprehensive symptoms-disease dataset, shared (free access) through the system's API. We finally describe, with some simple use cases, how a user can interact with it and extract information that could be used for subsequent analyses.

Discussion

DISNET allows retrieving knowledge about the signs, symptoms and diagnostic tests associated with a disease. It is not limited to a specific category (all the categories that the selected sources of information offer us) and clinical diagnosis terms. It further allows to track the evolution of those terms through time, being thus an opportunity to analyse and observe the progress of human knowledge on diseases. We further discussed the validation of the system, suggesting that it is good enough to be used to extract diseases and diagnostically-relevant terms. At the same time, the evaluation also revealed that improvements could be introduced to enhance the system's reliability.

Improving the Quality of Consumer Health Information on Wikipedia: Case Series

Background

Wikipedia is one of the most consulted health resources in the world. Since the public is using health information from Wikipedia to make health care decisions, improving the quality of that health information is in the public interest. The open editable content design of Wikipedia and quality control processes in place provide an opportunity to add high-value, evidence-based information and take an active role in improving the health care information infrastructure.

Objective

The aim of this project was to enhance Wikipedia health pages using high-quality, current research findings and track the persistence of those edits and number of page views after the changes to assess the reach of this initiative.

Methods

We conducted Wikipedia Editathons with 3 different cohorts of Physical Therapy (PT) students to add high-quality health information to existing Wikipedia pages. Students synthesized best evidence information and updated and/or corrected existing Wikipedia entries on specific health pages. To evaluate the impact of these contributions, we examined two factors: (1) response to our contributions from the Wikipedia editing community, including number and type of subsequent edits as well as persistence of the student contributions and (2) number of page views by the public from the time of the page edits.

Results

A total of 98 PT students in 3 different cohorts engaged in Editathons, editing 24 health pages. Of the 24 edits, 22 persisted at the end of the observation period (from time of entry to May 31, 2018) and received nearly 8 million page views. Each health page had an average of 354,724 page views.

Conclusions

The Wikipedia Editathon is an effective way to continuously enhance the quality of health information available on Wikipedia. It is also an excellent way of bridging health technology with best-evidence medical facts and disseminating accurate, useful information to the public.

The Most Influential Medical Journals According to Wikipedia: Quantitative Analysis

Background

Wikipedia, the multilingual encyclopedia, was founded in 2001 and is the world’s largest and most visited online general reference website. It is widely used by health care professionals and students. The inclusion of journal articles in Wikipedia is of scholarly interest, but the time taken for a journal article to be included in Wikipedia, from the moment of its publication to its incorporation into Wikipedia, is unclear.

Objective

We aimed to determine the ranking of the most cited journals by their representation in the English-language medical pages of Wikipedia. In addition, we evaluated the number of days between publication of journal articles and their citation in Wikipedia medical pages, treating this measure as a proxy for the information-diffusion rate.

Methods

We retrieved the dates when articles were included in Wikipedia and the date of journal publication from Crossref by using an application programming interface.

Results

From 11,325 Wikipedia medical articles, we identified citations to 137,889 journal articles from over 15,000 journals. There was a large spike in the number of journal articles published in or after 2002 that were cited by Wikipedia. The higher the importance of a Wikipedia article, the higher was the mean number of journal citations it contained (top article, 48.13 [SD 33.67]; lowest article, 6.44 [SD 9.33]). However, the importance of the Wikipedia article did not affect the speed of reference addition. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most cited journal by Wikipedia, followed by The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. The multidisciplinary journals Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences were among the top 10 journals with the highest Wikipedia medical article citations. For the top biomedical journal papers cited in Wikipedia's medical pages in 2016-2017, it took about 90 days (3 months) for the citation to be used in Wikipedia.

Conclusions

We found evidence of “recentism,” which refers to preferential citation of recently published journal articles in Wikipedia. Traditional high-impact medical and multidisciplinary journals were extensively cited by Wikipedia, suggesting that Wikipedia medical articles have robust underpinnings. In keeping with the Wikipedia policy of citing reviews/secondary sources in preference to primary sources, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most referenced journal.

Pharmacy students can improve access to quality medicines information by editing Wikipedia articles

BACKGROUND

Pharmacy training programs commonly ask students to develop or edit drug monographs that summarize key information about new medicines as an academic exercise. We sought to expand on this traditional approach by having students improve actual medicines information pages posted on Wikipedia.

METHODS

We placed students (n = 119) in a required core pharmacy course into groups of four and assigned each group a specific medicines page on Wikipedia to edit. Assigned pages had high hit rates, suggesting that the topics were of interest to the wider public, but were of low quality, suggesting that the topics would benefit from improvement efforts. We provided course trainings about editing Wikipedia. We evaluated the assignment by surveying student knowledge and attitudes and reviewing the edits on Wikipedia.

RESULTS

Completing the course trainings increased student knowledge of Wikipedia editing practices. At the end of the assignment, students had a more nuanced understanding of Wikipedia as a resource. Student edits improved substantially the quality of the articles edited, their edits were retained for at least 30 days after course completion, and the average number page views of their edited articles increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that engaging pharmacy students in a Wikipedia editing assignment is a feasible alternative to writing drug monographs as a classroom assignment. Both tasks provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their skills at researching and explaining drug information but only one serves to improve wider access to quality medicines information. Wikipedia editing assignments are feasible for large groups of pharmacy students and effective in improving publicly available information on one of the most heavily accessed websites globally.

Integrating Wikipedia Articles and Images into an Information Resource for Radiology Patients

Wikipedia-an open-access online encyclopedia-contains a large number of medically relevant articles and images that may help supplement glossaries of radiology terms. We sought to determine the extent to which concepts from a large online radiology glossary developed as part of the Patient-Oriented Radiology Reporter (PORTER) initiative could be mapped to relevant Wikipedia web pages and images using automated or semi-automated approaches. The glossary included 4090 concepts with their definitions; the concept's preferred name and lexical variants, such as plurals, adjectival forms, synonyms, and abbreviations, yielded a total of 13,030 terms. Of the 4090 concepts, 3063 (74.9%) had a corresponding English-language Wikipedia page identified by automated search with subsequent manual review. We applied the MediaWiki application programming interface (API) to generate web-service calls to identify the images from each concept's corresponding Wikipedia page; three reviewers selected relevant images to associate with the glossary's concepts. Licensing terms for the images were reviewed. For 800 randomly sampled concepts that had associated Wikipedia pages, 362 distinct images were identified from the MediaWiki library and matched to 404 concepts (51%). Three images (1%) had unspecified licensing terms; the rest were in the public domain or available via a Creative Commons license. Wikipedia and the MediaWiki library offer a large collection of medical articles and images that can be incorporated into an online lay-language glossary of radiology terms though a semi-automated approach.