ArticleScientific reports2023
Demographic and motivational differences between participants in analog and digital citizen science projects for monitoring mosquitoes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tracking the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) in Austria: benefits of combining expert-based monitoring with citizen science data.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- Present and Future of Mosquito-Borne Disease Control in Europe with a Specific Focus on the Mediterranean.Insects · 2026Review
- Citizen Science and Multimedia Didactic Resources: Knowledge of Mosquito-Borne Diseases in an Urban Area of Southwestern Colombia.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024Article
- Assessing and correcting neighborhood socioeconomic spatial sampling biases in citizen science mosquito data collection.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Emerging technologies in citizen science and potential for insect monitoring.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Worldwide, citizen scientists help to map the distribution of native and introduced mosquito species in a variety of programs, contributing to environmental research and management decisions. Participant background, behavior, and engagement may vary depending on the project design, especially between those using digital apps and those using physical samples, which in turn may impact the quality and representativeness of the data collected. During the analysis of the responses to a survey directed at citizen scientists participating in a digital and an analog program, we found significant differences in the respondents' demographic backgrounds. Diverse participant motivations and varying sentiments towards mosquitoes were observed, indicating differing susceptibility in response to the program messages. The results can be translated into recommendations to further strengthen the appeal of citizen science projects and to promote and sustain public engagement in environmental research.
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.