Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35615030›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

A Scoping Review of Citizen Science Approaches in Chronic Disease Prevention.

Leah Marks, Yvonne Laird, Helen Trevena, Ben J Smith, Samantha Rowbotham

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Scoping Review of Health-Related Citizen Science Projects Involving Indigenous Peoples in Australia and Internationally.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Machine learning in healthcare citizen science: A scoping review.International journal of medical informatics · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Leah MarksMenzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Yvonne LairdCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Helen TrevenaMenzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ben J SmithCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Samantha RowbothamMenzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Citizen science approaches, which involve members of the public as active collaborators in scientific research, are increasingly being recognized for their potential benefits in chronic disease prevention. However, understanding the potential applicability, feasibility and impacts of these approaches is necessary if they are to be more widely used. This study aimed to synthesize research that has applied and evaluated citizen science approaches in chronic disease prevention and identify key questions, gaps, and opportunities to inform future work in this field. Methods: We searched six databases (Scopus, Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, PubMed, and CINAHL) in January 2022 to identify articles on the use of citizen science in prevention. We extracted and synthesized data on key characteristics of citizen science projects, including topics, aims and level of involvement of citizen scientists, as well as methods and findings of evaluations of these projects. Results: Eighty-one articles reported on citizen science across a variety of health issues, predominantly physical activity and/or nutrition. Projects primarily aimed to identify problems from the perspective of community members; generate and prioritize solutions; develop, test or evaluate interventions; or build community capacity. Most projects were small-scale, and few were co-produced with policy or practice stakeholders. While around half of projects included an evaluation component, overall, there was a lack of robust, in-depth evaluations of the processes and impacts of citizen science projects. Conclusions: Citizen science approaches are increasingly being used in chronic disease prevention to identify and prioritize community-focused solutions, mobilize support and advocacy, and empower communities to take action to support their health and wellbeing. However, to realize the potential of this approach more attention needs to be paid to demonstrating the feasibility of using citizen science approaches at scale, and to rigorous evaluation of impacts from using these approaches for the diverse stakeholders involved.

Indexed as

Citizen ScienceChronic DiseaseDelivery of Health CareExerciseHumanschronic disease preventioncitizen science (CS)community engagement (CE)health policyhealth promotionparticipatory research (PR)public health

Identifiers

PMID35615030
PMCPMC9125037

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.