{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024242424242424242, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006060606060606061, 'mean_word_length': 5.919161676646707, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
P157 Crowdsourcing methods to enhance HIV and sexual health services: a qualitative scoping review of evidence

Background Crowdsourcing, a process where non-experts and experts work together to solve a problem, may be useful for developing HIV and sexual health interventions, programs, and research. This qualitative scoping review examines evidence on crowdsourcing to improve HIV and sexual health services. Methods We searched four databases in June 2018. Studies were included if they involved crowdsourcing activities, focused on HIV/sexual health, and described the methodology in sufficient detail. We used a content-analytic approach to describe major findings related to types of crowdsourcing models, phases of implementation, advantages, and disadvantages. Results Our search strategy yielded 431 citations. A total of 17 studies were included for analysis. Four studies were from high-income countries, seven from middle-income countries, one from a low-income country, and five were global. Crowdsourcing was used to develop interventional materials to promote condom use, engage the community in sexual health campaigns, and inform policy changes in sexual health. We identified five types of crowdsourcing models: open contests, hackathons, open forums, extraction of data from social media platforms, and incident reporting systems. Open contests solicit solutions to problems and award prizes to finalists based on predetermined criteria. Hackathons are intensive, approximately 72-hour contests that bring together people to complete a specific task. Crowdsourcing projects shared four common phases: preparation, soliciting crowd inputs, judging submissions, and sharing solutions. Advantages of crowdsourcing included higher potential for innovation due to crowd heterogeneity, encouragement of multisectoral collaboration, empowerment of vulnerable populations, and creation of cost-effective and culturally appropriate intervention strategies. Disadvantages included temporal transience and the challenge of sustaining engagement over time. Conclusion This scoping review revealed diverse applications of crowdsourcing in HIV/sexual health programs and research. Further crowdsourcing research is needed in low and lower-middle income countries. Disclosure No significant relationships.