ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2023
Building capacity for citizen science in health promotion: a collaborative knowledge mobilisation approach.
Review in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Citizen science for research in public health: perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Community perceptions of citizen science approach in pandemic preparedness and response in South and Southeast Asian countries.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Caregivers' perspectives on the in-home implementation and effectiveness of "Miffy eats the rainbow!": a colorful, modeling- and reward-based intervention to improve fruit and vegetable intake in children.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Building citizen science intelligence for outbreak preparedness and response: a mixed-method study in nine countries to assess knowledge, readiness and feasibility.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Harnessing citizen science in health promotion: perspectives of policy and practice stakeholders in Australia.Health promotion international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Policymakers and practitioners in health promotion (e.g. those working for local, state or federal government organisations or community and non-government organisations with a focus on health and wellbeing) are increasingly interested in citizen science as a means of involving the public in research and decision making. The potential benefits of citizen science approaches in health promotion include increased research capacity, incorporation of community perspectives on problems and solutions, and improved public awareness and acceptance of actions to improve health. However, health promotion practitioners and policymakers report having limited familiarity and experience with citizen science and a desire to build their capacity in these approaches. The Citizen Science in Prevention (CSP) project aims to build capacity for citizen science in health promotion by: 1) supporting the development and implementation of citizen science projects by policymakers and practitioners, 2) establishing a network of health promotion stakeholders with familiarity and interest in citizen science approaches, and 3) co-designing resources to support the use of citizen science in policy and practice contexts. A comprehensive mixed methods evaluation will establish the reach, satisfaction, and impacts that can be attributed to the capacity building intervention. This paper describes the first known initiative to build capacity in the application of citizen science approaches in health promotion and we hope that this work will assist others in the development and implementation of capacity building activities for citizen science in health promotion and beyond.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.