@Article{信息:doi 10.2196 / / jmir。8226，作者=“Tucker, Joseph D和Pan, Stephen W和Mathews, Allison和Stein, Gabriella和Bayus, Barry和Rennie, Stuart”，标题=“众包竞赛和创新挑战的伦理问题和风险缓解策略:范围审查”，期刊=“J Med Internet Res”，年=“2018”，月=“3”，日=“09”，卷=“20”，数=“3”，页=“e75”，关键词=“众包;健康的沟通;背景:众包竞赛(也称为创新挑战赛、创新竞赛和诱导奖竞赛)可以用来征求关于卫生项目和设计公共卫生运动的多部门反馈。它们包括组织指导委员会，征求贡献，参与社区，判断贡献，确认贡献者的子集，并与社区分享。目的:本文综述了众包竞赛的各个阶段，审查了每个阶段的道德问题，并提出了降低风险的潜在方法。方法:我们的分析是基于我们团队组织的一个众包比赛的具体例子，该比赛旨在征集在中国推广避孕套使用的视频。这个比赛的目的是制作引人注目的1分钟视频来推广避孕套的使用。我们使用范围审查来检查现有的关于众包的伦理文献，以帮助识别和构建每个阶段的伦理问题。结果:众包让一群人解决一个问题，然后与公众分享解决方案。 Crowdsourcing contests provide an opportunity for community engagement at each stage: organizing, soliciting, promoting, judging, recognizing, and sharing. Crowdsourcing poses several ethical concerns: organizing---potential for excluding community voices; soliciting---potential for overly narrow participation; promoting---potential for divulging confidential information; judging---potential for biased evaluation; recognizing---potential for insufficient recognition of the finalist; and sharing---potential for the solution to not be implemented or widely disseminated. Conclusions: Crowdsourcing contests can be effective and engaging public health tools but also introduce potential ethical problems. We present methods for the responsible conduct of crowdsourcing contests. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/jmir.8226", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2018/3/e75/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8226", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29523500" }