ArticleBMJ open2025
How can citizen science enhance mental health research quality: theory of change development.
Article in BMJ open, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePublic involvement in mental health research enhances research quality. The use of citizen science methods in mental health research has been described as a conclusion of a movement towards increased public involvement; however, this field is in its early stages of development. Our objective was to create a theory of change (ToC) for how citizen science can be used to enhance mental health research quality.
designIterative consultation with the stakeholders of an existing citizen mental health science study, that is, change for citizen science to achieve co-production at scale (C-STACS: https://www.researchintorecovery.com/research/c-stacs/)
methodsWe co-developed a ToC through an iterative consultation with C-STACS stakeholders who were (a) representatives of mental health community organisations (n=10), individuals with public involvement experience (n=2) and researchers (n=5). In keeping with established ToC practice, entities were identified, including long-term impacts, outcomes needed to create an impact, stakeholder assumptions and indicators for tracking progress.
resultsA desired primary long-term impact of greater co-production of research was identified between researchers and members of the public, which would create a secondary impact of enhancing public capacity to engage in citizen mental health science. We proposed long-term outcomes needed to enable this impact: (1) greater co-production of research objectives and pathways between researcher and the public, (2) greater embedment of citizen mental health science into funder processes (eg, the creation of specific funding calls for citizen mental health science proposals, (3) greater clarity on the boundaries between citizen science and other participatory approaches (eg, so that there is not loss of impact due to conceptual confusion between these, (4) increased knowledge around effective frameworks to enable mass public participation and (5) greater availability of technology platforms, enabling safe and accessible engagement with citizen mental health science projects.
conclusionThe proposed ToC is grounded in the C-STACS project, but intended to be broadly applicable. It allows the continued formation of a community of practice around citizen mental health science and should be reviewed, as greater knowledge is developed on how citizen mental health science creates change.
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.