Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Using crowdsourcing at an academic conference to develop STI testing messaging for public dissemination
  1. Alissa Davis1,
  2. Eneyi Kpokiri2,
  3. Chunyan Li3,4,
  4. Suzanne Day5,
  5. Xumeng Yan6,
  6. Gifty Marley4,
  7. Sara E Landers1,
  8. Joseph D Tucker2,4,5
  1. 1 School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 Clinical Research Department, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  3. 3 Tokyo College, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
  4. 4 UNC-Project China, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
  5. 5 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  6. 6 Department of Community Health Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alissa Davis, School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA; ad3324{at}columbia.edu

Abstract

Objectives We provide a guide to conducting a crowdsourcing activity at an international sexually transmitted infection (STI) conference to design public messaging about STI testing and disseminating that messaging via social media.

Methods A speaker gave a presentation at a conference plenary session on the concepts of cocreation, crowdsourcing and designathons, and the application of these participatory approaches in public health research. To illustrate one of these approaches (crowdsourcing), attendees in the audience were asked to take part in a voluntary participatory activity, in which they would pair up with a fellow attendee sitting nearby and write down an idea on a blank notecard. Dyads were given 10 min to create an entry responding to the prompt, ‘Write something that inspires gonorrhoea and/or chlamydia testing (eg, picture, jingle, rhyme)’. Each entry was judged by at least four independent judges on a scale of 0 (lowest quality) to 10 (highest quality) based on their innovation and potential to promote chlamydia/gonorrhoea testing. Scores were averaged to determine the finalist entries.

Results We received 32 entries. The average score was 6.41 and scores ranged from 4.5 to 8 (median 6.63, IQR 5.75, 7.06). Half of entries (n=16) were slogans, 15.6% (n=5) were poems/rhymes, 12.5% (n=4) were memes/images, 9.4% (n=3) were programme implementation ideas, 3.1% (n=1) was a song verse, and 3.1% (n=1) was a video idea. One finalist entry was a meme and received 720 impressions, 120 engagements, 27 detail expands, 19 likes, 6 reposts and 1 response on Twitter. The second finalist entry was a slogan and received 242 impressions, 16 engagements, 6 detail expands, 4 likes and 2 reposts.

Conclusions Conducting crowdsourcing activities at future conferences may be an innovative, feasible way to develop and disseminate engaging and important STI and other health messaging to the public in a short period of time.

  • Chlamydia Infections
  • gonorrhoea
  • Communication

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Anna Maria Geretti

  • Twitter @davis_alissa

  • Contributors AD was involved in drafting the manuscript, formatting and preparing the manuscript for submission, helping facilitate the crowdsourcing activity and judging the crowdsourcing entries. EK was involved in drafting and reviewing the manuscript, developing manuscript figures, helping facilitate the crowdsourcing activity and judging the crowdsourcing entries. CL, SD, XY and GM were involved in reviewing and revising the manuscript, helping facilitate the crowdsourcing activity and judging the crowdsourcing entries. SEL was involved in reviewing and revising the manuscript, developing manuscript figures, helping facilitate the crowdsourcing activity and judging the crowdsourcing entries. JDT was involved in reviewing and revising the manuscript, leading the crowdsourcing activity and judging the crowdsourcing entries.

  • Funding No organizations provided funding for this activity. AD is supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K01DA044853) for career development. JDT is supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (K24AI143471).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.