ReviewNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2024
Citizen Science Studies in Nursing: A Systematic Review.
Review in Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Storytelling and Citizen Science for Transcultural Critical Care Nursing: The C4 Framework.Journal of transcultural nursing : official journal of the Transcultural Nursing Society · 2026Article
- The CIRCULAR model: advancing public health through citizen science initiated clinical and mechanistic research in atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Deliberation as a condition for meaningful participation in health and healthcare research.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCitizen science is a research approach wherein citizens actively participate alongside professionals in some or all stages of the research process. The bidirectional benefits it generates, especially in the field of health, including empowerment, new hypotheses, and results, and addressing issues truly important to society, justify the necessity to establish a common framework and address barriers to ensure a fruitful evolution of this new approach within nursing research. The aim was to analyze nursing projects with a citizen science focus that have been conducted.
methodsPRISMA guidelines were employed to conduct a systematic review. Searches were conducted on PubMed, CINHAL, LILACS, IBECS, and Cochrane. Following the identification and screening process, 13 studies were included. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Joanna Brigg Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist and the quality of citizen science research using the Citizen Science Appraisal Tool.
resultsCitizen science studies in nursing were notably recent (2017-2023). Five research areas were identified, with environmental health being the most predominant. Multiple tools, both technological and traditional, were utilized, with the "Photovoice" and "Our Voice" methodologies being prominent. Citizen participation was limited to data collection and analysis in 7 out of the 13 studies, with most studies working with small samples. Findings regarding the application of this practice were positive, but no study exceeded 26 points on the CSAT scale to be considered high quality in citizen science.
conclusionsCitizen science can be a promising approach within the field of nursing. There is a need to increase individual participation to fully realize the potential bidirectional benefits. It is imperative to establish a common theoretical framework and continue working on the development of this methodology within nursing.
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.