1932

Abstract

While there are many definitions of citizen science, the term usually refers to the participation of the general public in the scientific process in collaboration with professional scientists. Citizen scientists have been engaged to promote health equity, especially in the areas of environmental contaminant exposures, physical activity, and healthy eating. Citizen scientists commonly come from communities experiencing health inequities and have collected data using a range of strategies and technologies, such as air sensors, water quality kits, and mobile applications. On the basis of our review, and to advance the field of citizen science to address health equity, we recommend () expanding the focus on topics important for health equity, () increasing the diversity of people serving as citizen scientists, () increasing the integration of citizen scientists in additional research phases, () continuing to leverage emerging technologies that enable citizen scientists to collect data relevant for health equity, and () strengthening the rigor of methods to evaluate impacts on health equity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102856
2022-04-05
2024-05-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/publhealth/43/1/annurev-publhealth-090419-102856.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102856&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Akom A, Shah A, Nakai A, Cruz T 2016. Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) 2.0: how technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution in East Oakland. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 29:1287–307
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Bandura A. 1998. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol. Health 13:623–49
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Braveman P. 2014. What are health disparities and health equity? We need to be clear. Public Health Rep 129:5–8
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Brickle MB, Evans-Agnew R. 2017. Photovoice and youth empowerment in environmental justice research: a pilot study examining woodsmoke pollution in a Pacific Northwest community. J. Community Health Nurs. 34:89–101
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Bright CF, Cozart T, Bagley B, Scott H, Dennis J 2019. Social network gap analysis evaluation: a case study of the Southeastern Health Equity Council. Fam. Community Health 42:44–53
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Buman MP, Winter SJ, Baker C, Hekler EB, Otten JJ, King AC. 2012. Neighborhood Eating and Activity Advocacy Teams (NEAAT): engaging older adults in policy activities to improve food and physical environments. Transl. Behav. Med. 2:249–53
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Buman MP, Winter SJ, Sheats JL, Hekler EB, Otten JJ et al. 2013. The Stanford Healthy Neighborhood Discovery Tool: a computerized tool to assess active living environments. Am. J. Prev. Med. 44:e41–47
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Caliskan A. 2021. Detecting and mitigating bias in natural language processing Res. Rep. Brookings Inst. Washington, DC:
  9. 9. 
    Catalani C, Minkler M. 2010. Photovoice: a review of the literature in health and public health. Health Educ. Behav. 37:424–51
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Chesser SA, Porter MM. 2019. Charting a future for Canada's first age-friendly university (AFU). Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 40:153–65
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Chesser SA, Porter MM, Barclay R, King AC, Menec VH et al. 2020. Exploring university age-friendliness using collaborative citizen science. Gerontologist 60:1527–37
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Chinman M, Woodward EN, Curran GM, Hausmann LRM. 2017. Harnessing implementation science to increase the impact of health equity research. Med. Care 55:S16–23
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Chrisinger BW, King AC. 2018. Stress experiences in neighborhood and social environments (SENSE): a pilot study to integrate the quantified self with citizen science to improve the built environment and health. Int. J. Health Geogr. 17:17
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Chrisinger BW, Ramos A, Shaykis F, Martinez T, Banchoff AW et al. 2018. Leveraging citizen science for healthier food environments: a pilot study to evaluate corner stores in Camden, New Jersey.. Front. Public Health 6:89
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Chu K-H, Hoeppner E, Valente T, Rohrbach L. 2015. A social network analysis of a coalition initiative to prevent underage drinking in Los Angeles County. 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences4356–65 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Coughlin SS. 2014. Intervention approaches for addressing breast cancer disparities among African American women. Ann. Transl. Med. Epidemiol. 1:1001
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. 2012. Effectiveness–implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med. Care 50:217–26
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC 2009. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement. Sci. 4:50
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Emery M, Higgins L, Chazdon S, Hansen D 2015. Using Ripple Effect Mapping to evaluate program impact: choosing or combining the methods that work best for you. J. Ext. 53:2tt1
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    English PB, Richardson MJ, Garzón-Galvis C. 2018. From crowdsourcing to extreme citizen science: participatory research for environmental health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 39:335–50
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Eur. Citiz. Sci. Assoc 2015. Ten principles of citizen science Fact Sheet Eur. Citiz. Sci. Assoc. Berlin:
  22. 22. 
    Folkerth M, Adcock K, Singler M, Bishop E. 2020. Citizen science: a new approach to smoke-free policy advocacy. Health Promot. Pract. 21:S82–88
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Garcia AP, Minkler M, Cardenas Z, Grills C, Porter C. 2014. Engaging homeless youth in community-based participatory research: a case study from Skid Row, Los Angeles. Health Promot. Pract. 15:18–27
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML et al. 2019. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front. Public Health 7:64
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Golden TL, Wendel ML. 2020. Public health's next step in advancing equity: re-evaluating epistemological assumptions to move social determinants from theory to practice. Front. Public Health 8:131
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Hahn EJ, Wilmhoff C, Rayens MK, Conley NB, Morris E et al. 2020. High school students as citizen scientists to decrease radon exposure. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:9178
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Hancock C, Clarke SK, Stevens DE 2019. Supporting individuals’ healthy eating requires genuine engagement with communities. Nutr. Bull. 44:92–99
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Haynes EN, Hilbert TJ, Roberts R, Quirolgico J, Shepler R et al. 2019. Public participation in air sampling and water quality test kit development to enable citizen science. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. 13:141–51
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Hoe C, Adhikari B, Glandon D, Das A, Kaur N, Gupta S. 2019. Using social network analysis to plan, promote and monitor intersectoral collaboration for health in rural India. PLOS ONE 14:e0219786
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Honeycutt TC, Strong DA. 2011. Using social network analysis to predict early collaboration within health advocacy coalitions. Am. J. Eval. 33:221–39
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Inst. Med 2012. How Far Have We Come in Reducing Health Disparities? Progress Since 2000: Workshop Summary Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  32. 32. 
    Jiao Y, Bower JK, Im W, Basta N, Obrycki J et al. 2015. Application of citizen science risk communication tools in a vulnerable urban community. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13:11
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Kim KK, Ngo V, Gilkison G, Hillman L, Sowerwine J. 2020. Native American youth citizen scientists uncovering community health and food security priorities. Health Promot. Pract. 21:80–90
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    King AC, Campero MI, Garcia D, Blanco-Velazquez I, Banchoff A et al. 2021. Testing the effectiveness of community-engaged citizen science to promote physical activity, foster healthier neighborhood environments, and advance health equity in vulnerable communities: the Steps for Change randomized controlled trial design and methods. Contemp. Clin. Trials 108:106526
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    King AC, King DK, Banchoff A, Solomonov S, Ben Natan O et al. 2020. Employing participatory citizen science methods to promote age-friendly environments worldwide. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:1541
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    King AC, Odunitan-Wayas FA, Chaudhury M, Rubio MA, Baiocchi M et al. 2021. Community-based approaches to reducing health inequities and fostering environmental justice through global youth-engaged citizen science. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:892
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    King AC, Winter SJ, Chrisinger BW, Hua J, Banchoff AW. 2019. Maximizing the promise of citizen science to advance health and prevent disease. Prev. Med. 119:44–47
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    McCurley JL, Gutierrez AP, Gallo LC. 2017. Diabetes prevention in U.S. Hispanic adults: a systematic review of culturally tailored interventions. Am. J. Prev. Med. 52:519–29
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Newman G, Shi T, Yao Z, Li D, Sansom G et al. 2020. Citizen science–informed community master planning: land use and built environment changes to increase flood resilience and decrease contaminant exposure. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:486
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Odunitan-Wayas FA, Hamann N, Sinyanya NA, King AC, Banchoff A et al. 2020. A citizen science approach to determine perceived barriers and promoters of physical activity in a low-income South African community. Glob. Public Health 15:749–62
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Ortiz K, Nash J, Shea L, Oetzel J, Garoutte J et al. 2020. Partnerships, processes, and outcomes: a health equity–focused scoping meta-review of community-engaged scholarship. Annu. Rev. Public Health 41:177–99
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Raanaas RK, Bjøntegaard , Shaw L. 2020. A scoping review of participatory action research to promote mental health and resilience in youth and adolescents. Adolesc. Res. Rev. 5:137–52
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, Artiola J, Maier RM, Gandolfi AJ. 2015. Building a co-created citizen science program with gardeners neighboring a Superfund site: the Gardenroots case study. Int. Public Health J. 7:13
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Rodriguez NM, Arce A, Kawaguchi A, Hua J, Broderick B et al. 2019. Enhancing safe routes to school programs through community-engaged citizen science: two pilot investigations in lower density areas of Santa Clara County, California, USA. BMC Public Health 19:256
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Rosas LG, Salvo D, Winter SJ, Cortes D, Rivera J et al. 2016. Harnessing technology and citizen science to support neighborhoods that promote active living in Mexico. J. Urban Health 93:953–73
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Rowbotham S, McKinnon M, Leach J, Lamberts R, Hawe P. 2019. Does citizen science have the capacity to transform population health science?. Crit. Public Health 29:118–28
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Rubio MA, Triana C, King AC, Rosas LG, Banchoff AW et al. 2020. Engaging citizen scientists to build healthy park environments in Colombia. Health Promot. Int. 36:223–34
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Sheats JL, Winter SJ, Romero PP, King AC. 2017. FEAST: empowering community residents to use technology to assess and advocate for healthy food environments. J. Urban Health 94:180–89
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Stokols D. 1996. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am. J. Health Promot. 10:282–98
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Sullivan J, Croisant S, Howarth M, Rowe GT, Fernando H et al. 2018. Building and maintaining a citizen science network with fishermen and fishing communities post Deepwater Horizon oil disaster using a CBPR approach. New Solut 28:416–47
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Tuckett AG, Freeman A, Hetherington S, Gardiner PA, King AC. 2018. Older adults using Our Voice citizen science to create change in their neighborhood environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15:2685
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    van der Wal R, Sharma N, Mellish C, Robinson A, Siddharthan A 2016. The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science. Conserv. Biol. 30:550–61
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Washburn LT, Traywick L, Thornton L, Vincent J, Brown T 2020. Using ripple effects mapping to evaluate a community-based health program: perspectives of program implementers. Health Promot. Pract. 21:601–10
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Winter SJ, Buman MP, Sheats JL, Hekler EB, Otten JJ et al. 2014. Harnessing the potential of older adults to measure and modify their environments: long-term successes of the Neighborhood Eating and Activity Advocacy Team (NEAAT) study. Transl. . Behav. Med. 4:226–27
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Winter SJ, Rosas LG, Padilla Romero P, Sheats JL, Buman MP et al. 2016. Using citizen scientists to gather, analyze, and disseminate information about neighborhood features that affect active living. J. Immigr. Minor. Health 18:1126–38
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Winter SJ, Sheats JL, Salvo D, Banda JA, Quinn J et al. 2020. A mixed method study to inform the implementation and expansion of pop-up parks for economic, behavioral, and social benefits. J. Urban Health 97:529–42
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Wong M, Wilkie A, Garzón-Galvis C, King G, Olmedo L et al. 2020. Community-engaged air monitoring to build resilience near the US–Mexico border. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:1092
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Zieff SG, Musselman EA, Sarmiento OL, Gonzalez SA, Aguilar-Farias N et al. 2018. Talking the walk: perceptions of neighborhood characteristics from users of Open Streets programs in Latin America and the USA. J. Urban Health 95:899–912
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102856
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102856
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error