Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33869124›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2021

Citizen Consultation on Problematic Usage of the Internet: Ethical Considerations and Empirical Insights From Six Countries.

Biljana Gjoneska, Julia Jones, Anna Maria Vella, Philip Bonanno, Katerina Flora, Andrés Fontalba-Navas, Natalie Hall, Liljana Ignjatova, Zviad Kirtava, Daniel Moreno Sanjuán and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Citizen Science Studies in Nursing: A Systematic Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

12 authors at 10 institutions in 8 countries.

Biljana GjoneskaMacedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Skopje, Macedonia.
Julia JonesCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Anna Maria VellaFaculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.
Philip BonannoFaculty of Education, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.
Katerina FloraPsychology Department, Neapolis University, Pafos, Cyprus.
Andrés Fontalba-NavasAntequera Hospital, Northern Málaga Integrated Healthcare Area, Andalusian Health Service, Antequera, Spain.
Natalie HallCentre for Health Services and Clinical Research, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Liljana IgnjatovaFaculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia.
Zviad KirtavaDepartment of Medicine, Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Daniel Moreno SanjuánAndalusian Health Service, Seville, Spain.
Maria Piedade Vaz-RebeloFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Célia M D SalesFaculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
University of Hertfordshire · GBUniversity of Malta · MTAndalusian Health Service · ESHealthPartners · USMacedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts · MKNeapolis University Pafos · CYSaints Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje · MKUniversidad de Málaga · ESUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversity of Coimbra · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citizens and scientists can work together to improve the collective well-being, if citizens are inspired to help the advancement of science, and researchers motivated to listen to the voices of citizens. The benefits of such collaboration are increasingly recognized by both citizens and scientists, as reflected in the growing number of related publications and initiatives. This is especially relevant for emerging areas of research, where early involvement of citizens could help to envision, prioritize, and plan prospective studies. The Problematic Usage of the Internet (PUI) is one such area, which is fast becoming a public mental health concern. However, there remains a lack of clarity regarding the practical guidelines and ethical requirements for citizen involvement at the earliest stages of PUI. In our paper, we propose a conceptual framework and a template for initial involvement of citizens in PUI. They are derived from our community case studies, conducted in six European countries (Georgia, Greece, Malta, North Macedonia, Portugal, and Spain) and consisting of consultation with diverse groups of interested citizens (students, parents, teachers, and health professionals). Informed by our consultation exercises, we also highlight four ethical aspects for citizen involvement in the research on PUI or novel disciplines in general. They follow simple guiding principles to ensure that scientists will: enable a long-term commitment and inclusive opportunities for citizens, challenge established power hierarchies, and support collaboration, co-production and co-authorship with citizens. We believe that the proposed practical guidelines and ethical considerations, provide a valuable foundation on which to advance our understanding and generate international strategies for citizen involvement in PUI.

Indexed as

InternetReferral and ConsultationEuropeGeorgiaGreeceHumansMaltaPortugalProspective StudiesRepublic of North MacedoniaSpaincitizen consultationconceptual frameworkearly researchemerging disciplineethical considerationsproblematic usage of the internetpublic health

Identifiers

PMID33869124
PMCPMC8046911
OpenAlexW3149980088

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.