Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32935026›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of population data science2019

Citizen Health Science: Foundations of a New Data Science Arena.

T A Walls, A Coria, S R Forkus

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of population data science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

T A WallsUniversity of Rhode Island, Department of Psychology, Chafee Hall, 142 Flagg Road, Kingston, RI 02881.
A CoriaUniversity of Rhode Island, Department of Psychology, Chafee Hall, 142 Flagg Road, Kingston, RI 02881.
S R ForkusUniversity of Rhode Island, Department of Psychology, Chafee Hall, 142 Flagg Road, Kingston, RI 02881.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citizen scientists with health interests have rapidly increased efforts to conduct their own health studies on themselves and in their communities, giving rise to a new transdisciplinary field of citizen health science. This science leverages long-standing traditions of single case or N-of-1 studies in psychology and also finds influential roots in the history of self-experimentation in health and medicine. These studies frequently incorporate new digital tools such as smartphone tracking and many other mobile health or "mHealth" devices. Citizen health scientists also tend to operate in social networks of people working to maintain or improve their health, increasing the complexity and richness of opportunities tied to this new platform. Population data scientists are well-positioned to seek new ways to derive scientific inferences from data generated in citizen health science projects. This paper provides an overview of citizen health science for population data scientists, including basic definitions, historical foundations, current challenges and opportunities, and future directions.

Indexed as

Citizen health scienceidiographic researchself-experimentationsingle-case designssingle-subject studies

Identifiers

PMID32935026
PMCPMC7299478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.