Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39223606›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024

Citizen involvement in research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being: a scoping review.

Catharina Margaretha van Leersum, Christina Jaschinski, Marloes Bults, Johan van der Zwart

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Family Carer Involvement in Dementia Care Research: A Scoping Review and Expert Consultation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Catharina Margaretha van LeersumDepartment of Science, Technology, and Policy Studies, Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. c.m.vanleersum@utwente.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-0794
Christina JaschinskiTechnology, Health, and Care Research Group, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Marloes BultsTechnology, Health, and Care Research Group, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Johan van der ZwartDepartment of Science, Technology, and Policy Studies, Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citizen science can be a powerful approach to foster the successful implementation of technological innovations in health, care or well-being. Involving experience experts as co-researchers or co-designers of technological innovations facilitates mutual learning, community building, and empowerment. By utilizing the expert knowledge of the intended users, innovations have a better chance to get adopted and solve complex health-related problems. As citizen science is still a relatively new practice for health and well-being, little is known about effective methods and guidelines for successful collaboration. This scoping review aims to provide insight in (1) the levels of citizen involvement in current research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being, (2) the used participatory methodologies, and (3) lesson's learned by the researchers.A scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search was performed in SCOPUS in January 2021 and included peer-reviewed journal and conference papers published between 2016 and 2020. The final selection (N = 83) was limited to empirical studies that had a clear focus on technological innovations for health, care or well-being and involved citizens at the level of collaboration or higher. Our results show a growing interest in citizens science as an inclusive research approach. Citizens are predominantly involved in the design phase of innovations and less in the preparation, data-analyses or reporting phase. Eight records had citizens in the lead in one of the research phases.Researcher use different terms to describe their methodological approach including participatory design, co-design, community based participatory research, co-creation, public and patient involvement, partcipatory action research, user-centred design and citizen science. Our selection of cases shows that succesful citizen science projects develop a structural and longitudinal partnership with their collaborators, use a situated and adaptive research approach, and have researchers that are willing to abandon traditional power dynamics and engage in a mutual learning experience.

Indexed as

Citizen ScienceCommunity ParticipationCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCooperative BehaviorDelivery of Health CareHumansInventionsCitizen scienceCo-creationCo-researcherseHealthHealthcareInnovationParticipatory researchWell-being

Identifiers

PMID39223606
PMCPMC11367923

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.