The Potential of Crowdsourcing to Improve Patient-Centered Care

Abstract

Crowdsourcing (CS) is the outsourcing of a problem or task to a crowd. Although patient-centered care (PCC) may aim to be tailored to an individual’s needs, the uses of CS for generating ideas, identifying values, solving problems, facilitating research, and educating an audience represent powerful roles that can shape both allocation of shared resources and delivery of personalized care and treatment. CS can often be conducted quickly and at relatively low cost. Pitfalls include bias, risks of research ethics, inadequate quality of data, inadequate metrics, and observer-expectancy effect. Health professionals and consumers in the US should increase their attention to CS for the benefit of PCC. Patients’ participation in CS to shape health policy and decisions is one way to pursue PCC itself and may help to improve clinical outcomes through a better understanding of patients’ perspectives. CS should especially be used to traverse the quality-cost curve, or decrease costs while preserving or improving quality of care.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    National Center for Biotechnology Information. Crowdsourcing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=crowdsourcing. Accessed 5 Nov 2013.

  2. 2.

    Johnston SC, Hauser SL. Crowdsourcing scientific innovation. Ann Neurol. 2009;65(6):A7–8. doi:10.1002/ana.21791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ranard BL, Ha YP, Meisel ZF, et al. Crowdsourcing: harnessing the masses to advance health and medicine, a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;11:11.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Parvanta C, Roth Y, Keller H. Crowdsourcing 101: a few basics to make you the leader of the pack. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14(2):163–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Cohn J. Citizen science: can volunteers do real research? BioScience. 2008;58(3):192–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hussey PS, Anderson GF, Osborn R, et al. How does the quality of care compare in five countries? Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23(3):89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Davis K. Slowing the growth of health care costs: learning from international experience. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1751–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Anderson GF, Hurst J, Hussey PS, et al. Health spending and outcomes: trends in OECD countries, 1960–1998. Health Aff (Millwood). 2000;19(3):150–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Stewart M. Towards a global definition of patient centred care. BMJ. 2001;322(7284):444–5.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Newbold KB, Campos S. Media and social media in public health messages: a systematic review. Hamilton: McMaster Institute of Environment & Health; 2011. http://www.mcmaster.ca/mieh/documents/publications/Social%20Media%20Report.pdf.

  12. 12.

    International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations. Declaration on patient-centred healthcare. http://www.patientsorganizations.org/showarticle.pl?id=712&n=312. Accessed 5 Nov 2013.

  13. 13.

    Merchant RM, Asch DA, Hershey JC, et al. A crowdsourcing innovation challenge to locate and map automated external defibrillators. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(2):229–36.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Luengo-Oroz MA, Arranz A, Frean J. Crowdsourcing malaria parasite quantification: an online game for analyzing images of infected thick blood smears. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(6):e167. doi:10.2196/jmir.2338.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Graber MA, Graber A. Internet-based crowdsourcing and research ethics: the case for IRB review. J Med Ethics. 2013;39(2):115–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Good BM, Su AI. Crowdsourcing for bioinformatics. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(16):1925–33.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    OpenMRS. OpenMRS. http://openmrs.org/. Accessed 29 Jan 2014.

  18. 18.

    Norman TC, Bountra C, Edwards AM, et al. Leveraging crowdsourcing to facilitate the discovery of new medicines. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(88):88mr1.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bow HC, Dattilo JR, Jonas AM, et al. A crowdsourcing model for creating preclinical medical education study tools. Acad Med. 2013;88(6):766–70. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828f86ef.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    McCartney P. Crowdsourcing in healthcare. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2013;38(6):392.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Behrend TS, Sharek DJ, Meade AW, et al. The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behav Res Methods. 2011;43(3):800–13.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Turner AM, Kirchhoff K, Capurro D. Using crowdsourcing technology for testing multilingual public health promotion materials. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(3):e79.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Armstrong AW, Harskamp CT, Cheeney S, et al. Crowdsourcing in eczema research: a novel method of data collection. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11(10):1153–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Dasgupta N, Freifeld C, Brownstein JS, et al. Crowdsourcing black market prices for prescription opioids. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e178.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cameron P, Corne DW, Mason CE, et al. Crowdfunding genomics and bioinformatics. Genome Biol. 2013;14(9):134.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research reported here was supported by the Regenstrief Institute, Inc., the Indiana University School of Medicine, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service CIN 13-416. Dr. Weiner is Chief of Health Services Research and Development at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, IN, USA. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Weiner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weiner, M. The Potential of Crowdsourcing to Improve Patient-Centered Care. Patient 7, 123–127 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0051-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Trastuzumab
  • Automate External Defibrillator
  • Individual Patient Preference
  • Personal Tradeoff
  • Creative Professional