Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Accessing health information online in Sweden: Swedish Wikipedia
This article has been withdrawn by the submitting author for publication by the WikiJournal of Medicine.
It is archived here as a record. Discussion can be viewed below.
First submitted:
Withdrawn:
Article text
QID: Q100400589
Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
"Accessing health information online in Sweden: Swedish Wikipedia". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q100400589.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Michaël R. Laurent 
contact
Mossab Banat contact
Jonas Ranstam
Bridget Kane
Michael Dodoh
Article information
This article has been withdrawn by the submitting author for publication by the WikiJournal of Medicine.
It is archived here as a record. Discussion can be viewed below.
Plagiarism check edit
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 editorial 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)
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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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)."
- Thank you for reviewing our improvements. I have further expanded the abstract in order to share the purpose of this study and the study type (observational), a summary of the results, and a conclusions. JenOttawa (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
First peer review edit
Review by Jonas Ranstam , Lund University
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer 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
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer 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.
- Response: Thank you for this thorough review.
- 1. We have reviewed the suggested source by Þorsteinsdóttir, G. and Kane, B that was published in 2018. I have expanded the discussion section using this evidence. Link to edit.
- 2. Regarding the important question of the goal of this paper and the comment "where is this article going"? This article was written with the goal of briefly sharing information related to people in Sweden who access health-related information in Swedish. We originally wrote this in preparation for Wikimania Sweden, with the hopes of encouraging more people to contribute to the project, including people who can contribute to Swedish language Wikipedia. Unfortunately, at this time, the collaborator who speaks Swedish and helped gather some specific resources that were not available in English, is not able to contribute at this time. We still feel that this would be a helpful article to publish, however, we also realize that this may not be as relevant at this time.
- Thank you again for your time and help to improve what we have shared. JenOttawa (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Third peer review edit
Review by Michael Dodoh ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
The authors have done a good job. The work contains several valuable and verifiable information about the availability and accessibility of Wikipedia health information in Sweden.
However, I think the work will be better and more empirically reliable if the authors include the procedure/method employed for the study. At least the method(s) employed should be mentioned. Secondly the abstract should also tell us something about the method and source of data. Thank you.
Editorial note edit
Authors indicated on 8 June that they did not wish to proceed with any further revisions Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)