Added value via crowdsourcing? An innovative exchange forum for science & public health B. Schauer1, M. Otto2, P. Tinnemann3, U. Teichert3, Alena Buyx4, B. Prainsack5 1Institute
for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, DE; 2Kinderumwelt gGmbH, Georgsmarienhütte, DE; 3Academy for Public Health at Düsseldorf, DE; 4Institute for Experimental Medicine, Christian-Albrechts-University at Kiel; DE 5Department of Global Health & Social Medicine, King's College London, UK
Introduction: In Germany no direct communication channel exists to share experiences and questions amongst members of the Public Health and Veterinary Services (PHS, PVS) and scientists (Figure 1; Table 1). Aim: To present stakeholder feedback on a planned exchange forum with crowdsourcing (CS) character to strengthen exchange between PHS and PVS representatives and scientists working with zoonotic diseases (incl. resistant pathogens) or hygiene. Table 1. Target group: Public health and academic representatives working with zoonoses, resistant pathogens or hygiene (*at district level: assumption 30% of total)
Federal authorities (ministries, RKI, BVL, FLI, BfR, NRL) State authorities and laboratories 382 health authorities, 2511 health officers 409 veterinary authorities, 1140 veterinary officers BETWEEN
&
WITHIN
Figure 1. Target group comprised of four sub-groups
>100 research groups (44 med and 5 vet unis) Total
Hundreds *30% of 3651 = 1095 Hundreds >1500
BUT: 20 years experience show “Just providing a forum does NOT guarantee exchange (consuming vs active role)”
Source: Bundesärztekammer (2016); Bundestierärztekammer (2015)
Crowdsourcing aims to increase the collective intelligence Methods Platform: Uminfo (Figure 2) Figure 4. Assumption: Concept (Figure 3) 10% of target group become participants or • Access (Figure 4): members o Registered participants: Intranet o Members: All features; requirement: 20 minutes contribution per month or three-month access fee • Moderator coordinates activities; contributes monthly discussion Figure 3. Concept of AUSTAUSCH-WIPH Figure 2. Screenshots of Uminfo topic & literature review • Active contributions: E.g. post or comment on questions; contribute or participate in training or participatory activities; propose training or research needs; indicate useful links; present best practice examples, results or ideas; join working groups • Participatory methods (e.g. jigsaw technique for cooperative learning), systems thinking (e.g. network analysis, joint development of causal loop diagrams) and innovative media (e.g. webinar) applied as part of the forum & training • Use as crowdsourcing platform: Example of CS questions: „Research questions from the practice of PH“; „How can we strengthen our joint fight against resistant bacteria?“; „Do you have questions regarding recent legal changes“ (IfSG, TierGesG)? • Search database informs research and advanced training • Network promotors recruit external experts on demand
Approach needs assessment “Vision or illusion?” No. Summary of stakeholder feedback Comments by project planning team 1 Need for such a forum? Various communication channels exist Communication structures heterogeneous (federal system, differences between sub-groups) 2
Other forums mostly “consuming” role; active contributions a) Active contributions needed to generate a benefit for all encouraged by various means; maybe only work if “upon instruction” b) interaction „upon instruction”– is that the exchange we want?
3
“Not another forum” (tiredness of social media)
This forum targets a gap, which is currently not covered by other forums
4
“No time”
Priorities depend on perceived value; aim for pilot project to measure value
5
Too many barriers (log-in, 20 minutes contribution or fee to access full contents)
6
Sensitive topics, relatively unknown group, option of anonymous questions?, concerns about “stirrers” Added value, e.g. for scientists?
20 minutes / month considered an affordable time commitment; aims to change members’ mind-set as a) everybody’s knowledge is valuable and b) collective intelligence can only increase if members are active; password-protected area deemed essential Control tools: Terms, moderator important role; option to ask anonymous questions via moderator Option to influence training and research agenda, gather feedback, take part in advanced training, learn from other sub-groups during participatory activities, …
7
Conclusions: • The proposed forum can lead to stronger information exchange and networking in the sense of One Health, improved translation of science and more targeted research and training • Interactive tools are needed to allow members to quickly identify areas where they can contribute (e.g. live tree diagrams showing ongoing activities and needs). Various types of contributions need to be offered to meet different personalities, ranging from active (e.g. form discussion group) to passive ones (e.g. pilot test training material) • Feedback no. 2, 4 and 7 are valid concerns, which may require long-term strategies to a) change mind-set (interaction is indeed a valuable action) and b) adjust resources to allow for time to interact. Promotion of interaction from the top level is important • Judging scientists’ performance purely via publications does not promote interaction (“social dilemma”); consider potential alternative strategies and generate external “benefits” (e.g. ATF hours, funding criteria) to promote exchange with PH
Participate in our online-SURVEY:
What do YOU think? Your opinion is important to us! https://www.surveymonkey.de/r/austauschwiph or email us (
[email protected])
