ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Potential of citizen science to advance urban planetary health research in low and middle-income countries: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Planetary health has emerged as a transdisciplinary field to capture the interdependencies between environmental changes and human health. Nowhere is this more critical than in the low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings where the majority of the world's population live. These settings are undergoing rapid urbanisation that could further threaten planetary boundaries. The collaborative and societally engaged nature of planetary health means more participatory and dynamic methods are needed to better characterise these exposures. Citizen science has the potential to enable the co-production of community-relevant evidence but the extent to which this is being deployed for planetary health in LMIC cities has not been synthesised. To synthesise evidence on the use of citizen science for planetary health-relevant studies in urban LMIC settings, we conducted a scoping review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and Joanna Briggs Institute's stages of conducting a scoping review. Inclusion criteria included empirical studies in LMICs, with a focus on cities and published in English within the last 10 years. Of the 31 eligible studies included, the majority focused on biodiversity, illustrating the unharnessed potential of deploying citizen science to advance understanding of a broader range of planetary health variables in LMIC cities. Our finding of a predominance of Global North funding for these studies highlights the need for greater diversity of funding sources and for a shift in the centre of gravity of funding decisions to optimise alignment of research priorities with contextual realities in the Global South. To inform future research, we propose a standardised reporting format for citizen science planetary health projects and guidelines to optimise data reliability and validity.
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.