SEARCHSYSTEMATIC_REVIEWpsychiatry, public health

systematic_review·psychiatry, public health, research methods, systematic review·PMC10515389

Best practice guidelines for citizen science in mental health research: systematic review and evidence synthesis

Frontiers in Psychiatry · 13 authors, 11 centres

AI SUMMARY

FIDELITY 100%

This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.

AGENT 01 · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

TRACE TO SOURCE

“

TL;DR

This systematic review of nine studies evaluated the use of citizen science in mental health research, finding it feasible but in early stages, with benefits for participation and a need for ethical guidelines.

Full summary

435 CHARS

The review found citizen science projects achieved genuine scientific outcomes and involved citizens mainly as data contributors. The authors concluded that while citizen science is feasible and has potential to democratize research, its use in mental health is nascent and lacks standardized reporting. Limitations include the small number of eligible studies, all from high-income countries, and potential digital exclusion barriers.

STUDY TYPE

systematic_review

SPECIALTY

psychiatry

SUMMARISED BY

AI pipeline

FIDELITY CHECK

100% · A

ORIGINAL PAPER

PMC10515389

Best practice guidelines for citizen science in mental health research: systematic review and evidence synthesis

Frontiers in Psychiatry

READ THE FULL PAPER

ABSTRACT

Abstract Partnering with people most affected by mental health problems can transform mental health outcomes. Citizen science as a research approach enables partnering with the public at a substantial scale, but there is scarce guidance on its use in mental health research. To develop best practise guidelines for conducting and reporting research, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting mental health citizen science research. Documents were identified from electronic databases ( n = 10), grey literature, conference proceedings, hand searching of specific journals and citation tracking. Document content was organised in NVIVO using the ten European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) citizen science principles. Best practise guidelines were developed by (a) identifying approaches specific to mental health research or where citizen science and mental health practises differ, (b) identifying relevant published reporting guidelines and methodologies already used in mental health research, and (c) identifying specific elements to include in reporting studies. A total of 14,063 documents were screened. Nine studies were included, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Citizen scientists with lived experience of mental health problems were involved in data collection, analysis, project design, leadership, and dissemination of results. Most studies reported against some ECSA principles but reporting against these principles was often unclear and unstated. Best practise guidelines were developed, which identified mental health-specific issues relevant to citizen science, and reporting recommendations. These included citizen science as a mechanism for empowering people affected by mental health problems, attending to safeguarding issues such as health-related advice being shared between contributors, the use of existing health research reporting guidelines, evaluating the benefits for contributors and impact on researchers, explicit reporting of participation at each research stage, naming the citizen science platform and data repository, and clear reporting of consent processes, data ownership, and data sharing arrangements. We conclude that citizen science is feasible in mental health and can be complementary to other participatory approaches. It can contribute to active involvement, engagement, and knowledge production with the public. The proposed guidelines will support the quality of citizen science reporting. Keywords: mental health, citizen science, community science, best practice guideline, public engagement

CITATION EXPORT

Olamide Todowede, Felix Lewandowski, Yasuhiro Kotera et al.. Best practice guidelines for citizen science in mental health research: systematic review and evidence synthesis. Frontiers in Psychiatry. (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1175311

AUTHORS

13 · 11 CENTRES

Olamide Todowede, Felix Lewandowski, Yasuhiro Kotera, Alison Ashmore, Stefan Rennick-Egglestone, Doreen Boyd, Stuart Moran, Kristin Berre Ørjasæter, Julie Repper, Dan Robotham, Michael Rowe, Dafni Katsampa, Mike Slade

1School of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
2School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
3University of Nottingham Libraries, Nottingham, United Kingdom
4School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
5Information Services, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
6Nord University, Faculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Health and Community Participation Division, Namsos, Norway
7ImROC, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
8McPin Foundation, London, United Kingdom
9Program for Recovery and Community Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States
10National Elf Service, London, United Kingdom
11School of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom