Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Accessing health information online in Sweden: Swedish Wikipedia

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiJournal Preprints logo.svg

WikiJournal Preprints
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review

WikiJournal User Group is a publishing group of open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journals. <seo title=" Wikiversity Journal User Group, WikiJournal Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>

<meta name='citation_doi' value=>

Article information

Authors: Jennifer Dawson[a][i]ORCID iD.svg , Edgars Košovojs, Carl Fredrik Sjoland ORCID iD.svg , James Heilman[b]ORCID iD.svg 

Dawson, J; Košovojs, E; Sjoland, C; Heilman, J. 





Plagiarism check[edit]

  • Artículo bueno.svg Pass. , using Earwig's copyvio detector, no significant overlap (only detected same affiliation of author dr. Heilman. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Editorial comments[edit]

Comments by Michaël R. Laurent
These comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

First, I would like to disclose my conflicts of interest being a Board member and co-author together with author James Heilman, and former co-editorial board member with Carl-Frederic Sjoland. Still, I feel this topic is in my area of expertise since I have several papers published and submitted in peer-reviewed journals on this topic.

I have the following comments: 1/ In the text one reference seems missing, under "which receives approximately 7 million page view each month.13".

2/ Although we've had some discussion about whether the findings still hold true, I think Laurent & Vickers, JAMIA 2006 should be cited were you state "Wikipedia articles come up early in a Google Search for health-related keywords".

3/ Instead of the "Ethics statement", I suggest you add some "author contributions", specifying the roles/contributions of each author to this work, i.e. in terms of idea for the study, design of methods, collection of the data, writing the manuscript's first draft, reviewing it critically and approving the final version.

4/ As per general wiki convention and journal style, I've moved this page to a title with downstyle caps and made some edits to the content, mainly by subdividing it into sections. Please review and approve those changes, thank you.

5/ Could you comment on the current state of the medical content of Swedish Wikipedia? Like, how many % of articles are good/featured, start/stub (if you have this grading system).

6/ Could you go into more details of what is planned as next steps to improve the content in collaboration with Cochrane?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Response

Dear User: Steven Fruitsmaak, Thank you for taking the time to review our submission and provide helpful feedback.

Comment #1: "In the text one reference seems missing, under "which receives approximately 7 million page view each month.13"": Reference added. Thank you for noticing this error.

Comment # 2: Although we've had some discussion about whether the findings still hold true, I think Laurent & Vickers, JAMIA 2006 should be cited were you state "Wikipedia articles come up early in a Google Search for health-related keywords". Agreed. I added your helpful reference. Thank you.

Comment # 4 Instead of the "Ethics statement", I suggest you add some "author contributions", specifying the roles/contributions of each author to this work, i.e. in terms of idea for the study, design of methods, collection of the data, writing the manuscript's first draft, reviewing it critically and approving the final version.. Great idea. I have taken you suggestion and added an Author Contributions statement.

Comment # 5: As per general wiki convention and journal style, I've moved this page to a title with downstyle caps and made some edits to the content, mainly by subdividing it into sections. Please review and approve those changes, thank you. Thank you for helping with this formatting. I agree with your improvements.

Comment # 6. Could you comment on the current state of the medical content of Swedish Wikipedia? Like, how many % of articles are good/featured, start/stub (if you have this grading system). I have flagged my co-author CFS on this one and will return to it

Comment # 7: Could you go into more details of what is planned as next steps to improve the content in collaboration with Cochrane? Thank you for this suggestion. This article was not written with the intention of highlighting the Cochrane partnership. I will discuss this with my co-authors and return to this comment.

Thank you again for all these helpful suggestions. We welcome feedback at any time.

JenOttawa (discusscontribs) 16:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment # 7 Followup: I spoke with author JH and we agree that this paper was not written to specifically highlight Cochrane. We are not aware of any Swedish Wikipedia Cochrane projects going on at the moment. Thank you for the suggestion. JenOttawa (discusscontribs) 00:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment # 6 Followup: To the best of our knowledge, we have no further information to add regarding the quality of the medical articles in Swedish Wikipedia. If you are aware of a consistently used rating scale for medical articles we would be happy to add this information in. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Gikt. Thank you! JenOttawa (discusscontribs) 13:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment # 6. The Swedish Wikipedia does not appear to have the same rating system as EN WP. Or it is at least not consistently applied. Doc James (discusscontribs) 18:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for the changes and responses, these are satisfactory.

However, I still feel the abstract could be slightly expanded and improved. Would you describe this as a "review" or an "observational study" (I think the latter). You could write something like "Here we set out to investigate the importance of the Swedish Wikipedia for online health information users in Sweden. Our findings showed that XXX...(listing all your findings)."

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


First peer review[edit]

Review by Jonas Ranstam , Lund University
This review was submitted on , and refers to this previous version of the article


This is a generally well-written descriptive review on medical content in Swedish Wikipedia articles. The information comes from relevant sources with references mostly supporting the statements made. However, I have a few of comments regarding potential or actual problems in the manuscript.

1. Sweden and Finland have a common history and Swedish is also an official language in Finland. Could this not have some relevance vis-à-vis the presented numbers, e.g. ""People in Sweden accessed Swedish Wikipedia articles 78.24 million times in the month of April""? Was this from Swedish IP addresses only?

2. The statement that ""The vast majority of Swedes (88%) use the internet to collect information pertaining to their health"" may be too optimistic. It is an uncertain estimate based on a sample of subjects. No margin of error is presented. Moreover, according to the survey, major differences exists in internet use in Sweden with regard to age. The age groups with the highest healthcare consumption has the lowest internet use.

3. The description that ""All residents presently have free online access to their personal health records..."" is not well supported by the presented reference. This states that ""The Swedish path to a nationally available PAEHR [Patient Accessible Electronic Health Record] has been long and challenging, and still we’re not quite there yet"".

Second peer review[edit]

Review by Bridget Kane , Karlstad University
This review was submitted on , and refers to this previous version of the article


This is an interesting and useful topic and has the potential to be a useful resource for health professionals and the public, alike. If this article is about accessing health information on-line in Sweden, then the website www.1177.se needs to be given more prominence. As well as facilitating Swedish residents online access to their health records, www.1177.se provides a lot of useful information. Almost 70% of your adults in Sweden report using it as a resource for health information [15 Þorsteinsdóttir, G.; Kane, B. 2018]. The article so far seems to downplay the role of www.1177.se as a provider of health information in Sweden. Its role needs greater acknowledgement. An overview of the types of information available on www.1177.se, with some links, would improve this article.

This article would greatly benefit from a methodology section that describes the sources of information, how the sources were accessed, and search terms used.

The introduction can be strengthened by describing the motivation, and the intended scope of the entry.

Findings: It is useful to set the context by providing general information about Sweden and its residents. It would be interesting to know about the usage of www.1177.se and if there are any known patterns of use. The article by Þorsteinsdóttir, G. and Kane, B. (2018) reports on frequent search topics by young people in Sweden, and the results also suggest that young Swedish people take responsibility for their health, and are interested in maintaining a healthy lifestyle. It would be interesting to know in this Wiki article if Swedish people have a different attitude to their health than others (in other cultures), and if their search patterns differ.

Discussion: The discussion can be developed much further. The search for health information can be considered in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, for example, or the timing of the searches. It would be interesting to know if those who search for information online, have a family doctor, for example, or if the model of healthcare that they experience expects individuals to take more responsibility for themselves, than perhaps in other cultures. Might there be topics, or information online, that individuals would not feel comfortable to discuss with their health professional?

The findings by Þorsteinsdóttir, G. and Kane, B. (2018) show that individuals search for information before visiting a health professional (sometimes to avoid having to consult with one). Þorsteinsdóttir, G. and Kane, B. (2018) also report that young people search for information following their visit with a health professional. Searching for information after a visit raises questions around 'Why?' Does searching after visiting a health professional reflect a desire for more detailed, specialised information, or for clarification on information that may have been provided during the visit?

Where is this article going? Will it guide healthcare professionals to information that they need to provide to the general public? Or will it improve their doctor-patient relationship or consultation with a health professional? It would be useful if the authors reflect on the purpose of this article, and the benefit they expect for readers.