Skip to main content

Building capacity for citizen science in health promotion: a collaborative knowledge mobilisation approach

Abstract

Policymakers and practitioners in health promotion (e.g. those working for local, state or federal government organisations or community and non-government organisations with a focus on health and wellbeing) are increasingly interested in citizen science as a means of involving the public in research and decision making. The potential benefits of citizen science approaches in health promotion include increased research capacity, incorporation of community perspectives on problems and solutions, and improved public awareness and acceptance of actions to improve health. However, health promotion practitioners and policymakers report having limited familiarity and experience with citizen science and a desire to build their capacity in these approaches. The Citizen Science in Prevention (CSP) project aims to build capacity for citizen science in health promotion by: 1) supporting the development and implementation of citizen science projects by policymakers and practitioners, 2) establishing a network of health promotion stakeholders with familiarity and interest in citizen science approaches, and 3) co-designing resources to support the use of citizen science in policy and practice contexts. A comprehensive mixed methods evaluation will establish the reach, satisfaction, and impacts that can be attributed to the capacity building intervention. This paper describes the first known initiative to build capacity in the application of citizen science approaches in health promotion and we hope that this work will assist others in the development and implementation of capacity building activities for citizen science in health promotion and beyond.

Plain English summary

Citizen science, the active involvement of members of the public in undertaking research, is gaining attention as a means of involving the public in research and decision making in health promotion. However, despite increasing interest in citizen science, policymakers and practitioners in health promotion (e.g. those working for local, state or federal government organisations or community and non-government organisations with a focus on health and wellbeing), lack the knowledge, skills and confidence to apply these approaches within their work. Knowledge mobilisation is a process designed to ensure research is useful for society, underpinned by researchers and non-academic partners working together to ensure that the knowledge produced is relevant and useful to those responsible for making decisions in practice. Within this paper we describe how we have used a knowledge mobilisation approach to work in partnership with health promotion agencies to develop, implement and evaluate a suite of activities aimed at building capacity in the use of citizen science approaches in health promotion.

Peer Review reports

Background

Community engagement is a core principle of public health and health promotion [1,2,3,4,5], and is recognised as a key factor in ensuring that policies and programs to improve health and wellbeing are relevant to community needs and optimise limited resources [2, 16,17,18,19,20]. However, incorporating community perspectives into research and policymaking has proven challenging [22], and there is a recognised need to further develop capacity and infrastructure to enable health promotion researchers, policymakers and practitioners to engage with the public in meaningful ways [16, 23, 24].

Citizen science, broadly defined as “public participation and collaboration in scientific research” [1] involves members of the public (‘citizen scientists’)Footnote 1 in a range of research activities, including developing research questions, designing project methodologies, data collection and analysis, and discussing, interpreting and disseminating research results [2,3,4,5]. A distinguishing feature of citizen science is that it brings participants into research as active contributors to the scientific process [3, 6] and involvement in citizen science projects can range from citizen scientists contributing to researcher-led projects, through to citizens developing and leading their own projects [7,8,9,10,11]. Citizen science has a long history in the natural sciences, particularly in counting or monitoring animals and insects, weather patterns, air and water quality, and stars and planets, and the significant contributions of citizen scientists in disciplines such as ecology and environmental science have been widely acknowledged [12,13,14].

Citizen science in health promotion

Over the past decade, citizen science approaches have attracted attention in health-related disciplines [15], with a growing body of literature discussing and reporting on the application of these approaches in public health and health promotion [3, 16, 17]. The potential benefits of citizen science approaches include increased research capacity, incorporation of community perspectives on problems and solutions, and improved public awareness and acceptance of actions to improve health [3]. A recent scoping review found that citizen science approaches have been used to: identify problems from the perspective of community members; generate and prioritise solutions; develop, test and/or evaluate interventions; and/or build community capacity [16]. For example, citizen science approaches have been used to identify environmental barriers and facilitators to physical activity and healthy eating [11, 18,19,20,21], understand public perceptions of alcohol-related harm [6], and collect information to support advocacy for tobacco control policies [22].

To date, most research applying citizen science approaches in public health and health promotion has been led by academic researchers [16, 23,24,25]. However, there is growing interest among stakeholders within policy and practice organisations responsible for health and wellbeing (e.g., government and non-government health promotion agencies, local health districts, and local councils) in applying these approaches within their work [6, 22, 26,27,28,29]. This growing interest presents a window of opportunity to build familiarity and skills in the application of citizen science approaches and explore the value that this can add to policymaking and program development. While progress has been made to build capacity in citizen science at individual and organisational levels in Australia and internationally [30], there has been little attention to the needs of policymakers and practitioners in health promotion and public health. Given the sensitivities involved in undertaking health-related research with the public, including balancing risks and benefits to community members, collecting and protecting personal data, working with vulnerable groups, and navigating ethical review committees [31,32,33,34], there is a need to identify and address the capacity building needs of these stakeholders.

Capacity building and knowledge mobilisation

Capacity building can be defined as “an approach to the development of sustainable skills, organisational structures, resources and commitment to health improvement in health and other sectors”, that can be undertaken with individuals, teams, organisations, and/or communities [35]. While many frameworks for capacity building exist, these often share key principles and elements such as stakeholder engagement, identifying and leveraging pre-existing capacity, building partnerships and trust, providing tailored resources and support, and developing skills and confidence [30, 36,37,38].

An ongoing focus of capacity building in the public health field is improving the application of evidence into policy and practice. Based on years of effort to facilitate ‘research translation’, there is growing recognition that evidence that is co-produced with knowledge users (e.g. policymakers and practitioners in public health) is more likely to be embedded in policy and practice [39, 40]. ‘Knowledge mobilisation’ is an approach to working in partnership to strengthen capacity to conduct, share and use research effectively [41] and is particularly well suited to citizen science capacity building because it is about bringing together key stakeholders to collaboratively identify solutions that address shared priorities.

Within this paper we outline our approach to implementing and evaluating a knowledge mobilisation initiative to build capacity in the use of citizen science approaches by policy and practice stakeholders in Australia. The aim of this paper is to outline the theoretical foundation to this approach coupled with a description of collaborative methods, project activities and the evaluation framework to assess the delivery and impact of capacity building efforts.

Overview of the Citizen Science in Prevention project

The Citizen Science in Prevention (CSP) project [42] is a national collaborative initiative which seeks to achieve the following key objectives:

  • Produce new knowledge on the feasibility, impacts and potential limitations of citizen science approaches within policy and practice contexts;

  • Increase familiarity and acceptance of citizen science and develop knowledge, confidence and skills in the application of these approaches among policy and practice stakeholders;

  • Establish a network of stakeholders with an interest in citizen science to enable sharing of experiences and insights.

It is important to note that the intention of this project was not to work directly with community members, but to enhance the skills and capacity of policymakers and practitioners to do so within their own projects. Within this work we therefore describe a suite of capacity building activities that were co-designed with policymakers and practitioners in health promotion to equip them with the knowledge, skills, and confidence to engage community members using citizen science. A glossary of terms can be found in Table 1.

Table 1 Glossary of terms

Methods

Phase 1: Application of a knowledge mobilisation approach to capacity building

In line with knowledge mobilisation principles [41, 46], this project is underpinned by a commitment to co-production and working in partnership with policy and practice stakeholders at all stages of the project. We have partnered with four Australian health agencies: VicHealth, Tasmanian Department of Health, Wellbeing SA and the South Western Sydney Local Health District (SWSLHD), and representatives from each of these organisations are named investigators on the research team. Our partners play an active role in shaping this program of work, with regular opportunities to contribute to and discuss activities so that the workplan can evolve and respond to emerging needs. In developing our approach, we drew upon input from a variety of key stakeholders, recognising the expertise they bring from their own contexts. This included early discussions with our project partners to identify activities, resources and support required, and interviews and informal discussions with other health promotion stakeholders (including those working in local health districts and local councils with a role in health and wellbeing and/or community engagement). Through this process we identified several capacity building needs related to the use of citizen science, including: accessible and informative resources to assist partners in planning citizen science projects and talking about these approaches with other key stakeholders; opportunities to share insights, experiences, and challenges with others who are using these approaches; advice and support from experienced citizen science researchers/practitioners in developing projects; and evidence and examples to demonstrate the feasibility and impacts of citizen science approaches in different policy and practice contexts. The project is being implemented over three years and consists of several interrelated components which aim to address the capacity building needs identified above, namely: (1) supporting the development and implementation of four stakeholder-led citizen science projects (see Fig. 1) [47]; (2) developing resources to support the use of citizen science by policy and practice stakeholders; (3) facilitating a Community of Practice (CoP) to bring together interested stakeholders to share information and insights, and (4) outreach activities to establish a wider network of stakeholders with familiarity and interest in citizen science approaches.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of the Citizen Science in Prevention project

As noted above, knowledge mobilisation approaches are particularly suited to working in partnership to strengthen capacity to conduct, share and use research effectively. Within this program of work, we drew on knowledge mobilisation domains established by Davies, Powell and Nutley [48]. These include: ‘researching in practice’ to provide hands-on support for stakeholder-led citizen science projects; ‘producing knowledge’ around the processes and impacts of citizen science approaches; ‘fostering networks’ for ongoing collaboration and support; and ‘brokering new and existing research’ on citizen science to policy and practice stakeholders. An overview of the core project components, and how these relate to the knowledge mobilisation domains are provided in Table 2 and described in more detail below.

Table 2 Overview of knowledge mobilisation domains and their relationship to project components

Supporting stakeholder-led citizen science projects

The concept of researching in practice is central to our program of work. As shown in Fig. 1, our program of work includes four citizen science projects being led (and resourced) by our project partners. We are working with these partners in an ongoing manner to provide support with the design and implementation of these citizen science projects (brokering knowledge), including an embedded developmental evaluation in which we are continually collecting, analysing and sharing data to support ongoing decision making around the use of citizen science (see Rowbotham et al. [47] for more detail on our approach to the evaluation of these four projects). Regular meetings with each of the citizen science project teams enables ongoing reflection on progress and challenges and opportunities for collaborative problem solving. To facilitate connections across projects and enable peer-learning, we host quarterly whole-of-project meetings, in which we bring together project partners to discuss progress and challenges related to their individual projects (fostering networks). Through these four stakeholder-led projects we will produce knowledge about the application of citizen science approaches in policy and practice contexts, including publications and other outputs reporting on the insights gained through the developmental evaluation in order to build the knowledge base on citizen science.

Developing citizen science resources

The creation and dissemination of “research-based knowledge ‘products’” [48] is an important element of knowledge mobilisation. As highlighted earlier, a priority for our policy and practice stakeholders was the need for evidence and examples to demonstrate the feasibility of citizen science approaches, and resources to support the application of citizen science approaches in prevention. In addition to academic publications, we are developing a set of resources to address information and support needs related to the application of citizen science approaches (producing knowledge). We have so far produced: a fact sheet introducing citizen science approaches and highlighting examples from the literature; a short, animated explainer video to introduce the key principles of citizen science; and a series of case studies to share reflections and insights on the use of citizen science approaches within the projects being led by our partners. Additional planned resources include fact sheets to assist in deciding when to use citizen science approaches and tools and technologies for citizen science, and evidence briefs of academic outputs from the program of work. We are also developing a workshop to introduce stakeholders to citizen science approaches. Throughout this process, we are working closely with project partners to make sure that the knowledge products developed are relevant to their needs (knowledge brokering). This includes gathering feedback on resources during the development process and co-authorship of academic outputs. All of our resources are hosted on The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre (TAPPC) website [42], and wherever possible academic outputs will be published in open-access format to enable stakeholders to easily access and share these.

Community of Practice for citizen science in prevention

Fostering networks is crucial across several elements of our program of work and includes providing opportunities for developing connections between project partners and building a wider network of stakeholders interested in citizen science in prevention. A key component of our approach to fostering networks is the establishment of a citizen science CoP to bring together a wider group of stakeholders working across academic, policy, practice and community settings who have an interest in these approaches. The objective of the CoP is to provide a space for stakeholders to: share insights, learnings and experiences; build capacity for collaboration between communities, researchers and policy and practice stakeholders; provide assistance with design, implementation and evaluation challenges; develop best practice resources and strategies; and offer mutual support. We worked closely with project partners to develop the CoP, including a series of informal discussions followed by a CoP planning workshop at the end of 2020 (brokering knowledge). Sessions are held bimonthly and alternate between a seminar format delivered by invited speakers with experience in the use of citizen science, and workshop sessions to explore topics related to citizen science in prevention. Sessions have focused on recruitment and engagement of citizen scientists, designing and implementing citizen science projects, and generating awareness and acceptance of citizen science approaches. To enable us to capture and share insights from these sessions we have also engaged a graphic illustrator who produces visual summaries of the CoP sessions [42].

Outreach activities

The final component of our capacity building approach involves citizen science presentations and workshops to a broader network of government and non-government organisations and groups (fostering networks), including local health districts and public health agencies, and discussions with individuals and project teams seeking advice and support in the application of citizen science approaches (knowledge brokering). Through these activities we have established new collaborations to support the development and implementation of new citizen science projects by local health districts and academic researchers.

Phase 2: Evaluating our approach to building capacity in citizen science

To inform future capacity building efforts, we have developed a comprehensive evaluation framework, drawing on the community knowledge mobilisation framework [49] and other relevant literature [50,51,52]. Within the evaluation we aim to determine the extent of policy and practice stakeholder engagement with our capacity building activities (reach), whether they found them useful and relevant to their work (satisfaction) and whether there had been any changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, practices, networks, or decisions as a result of engagement with the capacity building activities (impacts). This mixed methods evaluation will draw on a range of existing project data, including interviews conducted as part of the developmental evaluation of the four stakeholder-led citizen science projects (see Rowbotham, Laird [47] for more detail), CoP post-session feedback surveys, and project records and online metadata (e.g. website traffic, newsletter views). In addition, we will administer an evaluation survey at the end of the CSP project to provide an opportunity for policy and practice stakeholders who have engaged with any component of our capacity building work to provide feedback on the level of participation, utilisation, satisfaction and impacts of capacity building activities, in addition to any suggestions for future capacity building work. All stakeholders known to have engaged with our capacity building activities, including partners, implementers and other stakeholders who have been recruited as part of our developmental evaluation [47] will be invited to participate in this survey.

Table 3 outlines the evaluation questions, indicators, and data collection methods across our evaluation domains.

Table 3 Evaluation questions, indicators, and data collection methods

The evaluation has been approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref 2022/620 and 2022/647).

Discussion

Citizen science approaches in prevention can support the generation of more needs-focused and policy and practice relevant evidence. In addition, the use of citizen science approaches has the potential to increase public understanding of, and acceptance for policies and programs aimed at improving health and wellbeing, and can provide policymakers and practitioners in health promotion with a means of accessing locally relevant evidence to inform actions. This paper has outlined a knowledge mobilisation approach to building capacity in the use of these approaches through support, reflection and learning from developmental evaluation findings, and establishment of supportive networks and resources.

To our knowledge, this is the first initiative aimed at building capacity in the application of citizen science approaches in health promotion and public health. By drawing on the principles of knowledge mobilisation we have developed a range of strategies to build capacity including gaining hands-on project experience (researching in practice); sharing advice, support and evidence to support the use of citizen science (brokering knowledge); contributing to the evidence base on the feasibility, acceptability and impacts of citizen science in public health (producing knowledge); and bringing together stakeholders to share challenges, experiences and insights (fostering networks). This has enabled us to co-design a multifaceted program of work that is responsive to the capacity building needs of policymakers and practitioners in health promotion.

Central to applying this knowledge mobilisation approach is working in partnership with relevant stakeholders. As argued by Moss [53] “knowledge mobilisation is not just about moving a clearly defined set of ideas, concepts, research techniques or information from here to there. Rather it is about grappling with which forms of knowledge are apt in which contexts and how they can be strengthened through use”. Phipps and Shapson [54] highlight the need for more collaboration between researchers and knowledge users (in this case health promotion practitioners and policymakers) for knowledge mobilisation, which encompasses methods of knowledge co-production, exchange, transfer and translation. Our partnership with health promotion policymakers and practitioners is proving critical to the co-production of knowledge concerning the development, implementation, and impacts of these approaches in practice, and to informing capacity building needs so that support and resources are tailored accordingly.

Another aspect that is key to this approach to capacity building is the use of interactive and participatory approaches to dissemination. To date there has been a lag in the application of relational approaches to knowledge mobilisation by research agencies, such as the establishment of networks or holding of events to enable knowledge exchange, rather than traditional ‘push’ and ‘pull’ approaches involving the production of knowledge outputs such as evidence summaries and research papers [55]. The co-produced nature of this work and the establishment of the CoP and other opportunities to bring stakeholders together allows for interaction between researchers and knowledge users across all capacity building activities.

The CSP project commenced mid-2020 and through ongoing discussions with our project partners and other stakeholders we have been able to adapt and improve the program of work, ensuring it is aligned with stakeholder needs, particularly as their own knowledge and skills in citizen science develop. For example, some of the emerging challenges encountered by project partners have included identification of the most appropriate methods to gather data using a citizen science approach, completing applications for ethical approval, and strategies to engage and support citizen scientists in their projects. By working closely with project partners through the development and implementation of their citizen science projects we are able to tailor capacity building efforts to support the emerging needs of project partners. Early feedback via informal discussions and post-event surveys has endorsed the relevance and utility of the activities and resources provided and the opportunities for stakeholders to come together to share insights. Our outreach activities, including discussions and presentations for various external stakeholders have also resulted in several new collaborations to support the development of citizen science projects with other agencies, further indicating the success of our capacity building efforts. The next step for this project will be to undertake a more formal, in-depth evaluation as outlined in this paper.

Whilst conceptually promising, we acknowledge that the complexity of a multifaceted partnership approach may also present some challenges. The first reflects the need to consider engagement strategies for policy and practice stakeholders as their paid roles may not allow for the desired engagement in capacity building activities [30]. Engagement has been facilitated by the move towards online events since COVID-19, which increases access for interstate stakeholders. This project is also working to ensure activities are recorded or summarised and made available online. The other consideration is the widely acknowledged challenges in evaluating knowledge mobilisation approaches [48]. The evaluation of this program of work has been adapted over time to measure impacts at the individual and organisational levels in relation to capacity to use citizen science methods in policy and practice contexts.

Embedding citizen science approaches has the potential to strengthen community engagement in all aspects of public health and chronic disease prevention policy and practice, from priority setting to design and evaluation of initiatives. This paper outlines the first known approach to support policy and practice stakeholders to apply and sustain the use of citizen science approaches in health promotion. It demonstrates how knowledge mobilisation principles and methods can be applied in a collaborative and multifaceted program of work to facilitate the use citizen science approaches in public health, with potential applications in other fields of policy and practice.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. ‘Citizen science’ is the widely recognised and accepted terminology used to refer to the range of activities that actively involve the public in science. However, this term is not unproblematic, particularly as the term ‘citizen’ may be understood by some to refer to national citizenship, which can be a sensitive issue. In line with others in the discipline, within this paper “citizen” is equivalent to the concept of the “global citizen”, which includes any person interested in participating in citizen science.

Abbreviations

CoP:

Community of Practice

CSP:

Citizen Science in Prevention project

References

  1. Australian Citizen Science Association. 10 Principles of Citizen Science. 2018. [Available from: https://citizenscience.org.au/10-principles-of-citizen-science.

  2. Bonney R, Ballard HL, Jordan H, McCallie E, Phillips TB, Shirk J, et al. Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. Washington: A CAISE inquiry group report; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rowbotham S, McKinnon M, Leach J, Lamberts R, Hawe P. Does citizen science have the capacity to transform population health science? Crit Public Health. 2019;29(1):118–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Franzoni C, Poetz M, Sauermann H. Crowds, citizens, and science: a multi-dimensional framework and agenda for future research. Ind Innov. 2021;2021:1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  5. European Citizen Science Association. Ten principles of citizen science. 2015. [Available from: https://eu-citizen.science/resource/88.

  6. Richardson L. Engaging the public in policy research: are community researchers the answer? Pol Gove. 2014;2(1):32–44.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, et al. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc. 2012;17(2).

  8. Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, et al. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience. 2009;59(11):977–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. King AC, Winter SJ, Sheats JL, Rosas LG, Buman MP, Salvo D, et al. Leveraging citizen science and information technology for population physical activity promotion. Transl J Am Coll Sports Med. 2016;1(4):30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Haklay M. Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. Crowdsour Geogr Knowl. 2013;105–22.

  11. Den Broeder L, Lemmens L, Uysal S, Kauw K, Weekenborg J, Schönenberger M, et al. Public health citizen science; perceived impacts on citizen scientists: a case study in a low-income neighbourhood in the Netherlands. Citiz Sci Theory Pract. 2017;2(1).

  12. Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2010;41(1):149–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Silvertown J, Cook L, Cameron R, Dodd M, McConway K, Worthington J, et al. Citizen science reveals unexpected continental-scale evolutionary change in a model organism. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(4): e18927.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sullivan BL, Aycrigg JL, Barry JH, Bonney RE, Bruns N, Cooper CB, et al. The eBird enterprise: an integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biol Cons. 2014;169:31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kullenberg C, Kasperowski D. What is citizen science? A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(1): e0147152.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Marks L, Laird Y, Trevena H, Smith BJ, Rowbotham S. A scoping review of citizen science approaches in chronic disease prevention. Front Public Health. 2022;10: 743348.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Den Broeder L, Devilee J, Van Oers H, Schuit AJ, Wagemakers A. Citizen science for public health. Health Promot Int. 2018;33(3):505–14.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Buman MP, Winter SJ, Baker C, Hekler EB, Otten JJ, King AC. Neighborhood eating and activity advocacy teams (NEAAT): engaging older adults in policy activities to improve food and physical environments. Transl Behav Med. 2012;2(2):249–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sheats JL, Winter SJ, Romero PP, King AC. FEAST: empowering community residents to use technology to assess and advocate for healthy food environments. J Urban Health. 2017;94(2):180–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Tuckett AG, Freeman A, Hetherington S, Gardiner PA, King AC. Older adults using our voice citizen science to create change in their neighborhood environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2685.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Winter SJ, Goldman Rosas L, Padilla Romero P, Sheats JL, Buman MP, Baker C, et al. Using citizen scientists to gather, analyze, and disseminate information about neighborhood features that affect active living. J Immigr Minor Health. 2016;18(5):1126–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Folkerth M, Adcock K, Singler M, Bishop E. Citizen science: a new approach to smoke-free policy advocacy. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(1_suppl):82S-S88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Borda A, Gray K, Downie L. Citizen science models in health research: an australian commentary. Online J Public Health Inform. 2019;11(3): e23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. King AC, Winter SJ, Chrisinger BW, Hua J, Banchoff AW. Maximizing the promise of citizen science to advance health and prevent disease. Prev Med. 2019;119:44–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Australian Health Research Alliance. Consumer and community involvement in health and medical research: An Australia-wide audit. 2018.

  26. Okop KJ, Murphy K, Lambert EV, Kedir K, Getachew H, Howe R, et al. Community-driven citizen science approach to explore cardiovascular disease risk perception, and develop prevention advocacy strategies in sub-Saharan Africa: a programme protocol. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rowbotham S, Marks L, Tawia S, Woolley E, Rooney J, Kiggins E, et al. Using citizen science to engage the public in monitoring workplace breastfeeding support in Australia. Health Promot J Austr. 2021;3:151.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Barrie H, Soebarto V, Lange J, Mc Corry-Breen F, Walker L. Using citizen science to explore neighbourhood influences on ageing well: pilot project. Healthcare. 2019;7(4):126.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. SACommunity. Citizen Science for Greener, Healthier Neighbourhoods. 2020. Available from: https://sacommunity.org/node/657.

  30. Richter A, Dorler D, Hecker S, Heigl F, Pettibone L, Serrano Sanz F, et al. Capacity building in citizen science. Citizen science Innovation in open science, society and policy. London: UCL Press; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Resnik DB, Miller AK, Kwok RK, Engel LS, Sandler DP. Ethical issues in environmental health research related to public health emergencies: reflections on the Gulf study. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123(9):A227–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Vayena E, Mastroianni A, Kahn J. Ethical issues in health research with novel online sources. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(12):2225–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Bastida EM, Tseng T-S, McKeever C, Jack L. Ethics and community-based participatory research: perspectives from the field. Health Promot Pract. 2010;11(1):16–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Hawe P, Rowbotham S, Marks L, Casson J. The risk management practices of health research ethics committees may undermine citizen science to address basic human rights. Public Health Ethics. 2022;15:194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hawe P, Noort M, King L, Jordens C. Multiplying health gains: the critical role of capacity-building within health promotion programs. Health Policy. 1997;39:29–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hawe P. A framework for building capacity to improve health. New South Wales Health Department. 2001.

  37. Cooke J. A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6(1):44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. AIDSTAR-Two. Organizational Capacity Building Framework. Arlington: AIDSTAR-Two; 2011.

  39. Kok MO, Gyapong JO, Wolffers I, Ofori-Adjei D, Ruitenberg J. Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Bruni RA, Laupacis A, Martin DK. University of Toronto priority setting in health care research G. public engagement in setting priorities in health care. CMAJ. 2008;179(1):15–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Haynes A, Rowbotham S, Grunseit A, Bohn-Goldbaum E, Slaytor E, Wilson A, et al. Knowledge mobilisation in practice: an evaluation of the Australian prevention partnership centre. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Australian Prevention Partnership Centre. Harnessing the power of citizen science for prevention. 2021. [Available from: https://preventioncentre.org.au/research-projects/harnessing-the-power-of-citizen-science-for-prevention/.

  43. Health promotion glossary of terms. Geneva: World Health Organisation. 2021.

  44. Phipps D, Cummings J, Pepler D, Craig W, Cardinal S. The co-produced pathway to impact describe knowledge mobilisation processes. J Community Engagem Scholarsh. 2016;9(1):31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. DeCorby-Watson K, Mensah G, Bergeron K, Abdi S, Rempel B, Manson H. Effectiveness of capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):684.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Haynes A, Rychetnik L, Finegood D, Irving M, Freebairn L, Hawe P. Applying systems thinking to knowledge mobilisation in public health. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):134.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Rowbotham S, Laird Y, Marks L, Walker P, Pontifex K, Sobhan A, et al. Building capacity to apply citizen science approaches in policy and practice for public health: protocol for a developmental evaluation of four stakeholder-led projects. Citiz Sci Theory Pract. 2022;7(1).

  48. Davies HTO, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors—a multimethod mapping study. Health Services and Delivery Research. Southampton (UK) 2015.

  49. Worton SK, Loomis C, Pancer SM, Nelson G, Peters RD. Evidence to impact: a community knowledge mobilisation evaluation framework. Gatew Int J Community Res Engagem. 2017;10:121–42.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Beckett K, Farr M, Kothari A, Wye L, le May A. Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Edwards DM, Meagher LR. A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: a forestry pilot study. Forest Policy Econ. 2019;114:101975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO. Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Bristol: Bristol University Press Policy Press; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Moss G. Research, policy and knowledge flows in education: what counts in knowledge mobilisation? Contemp Social Sci. 2013;8(3):237–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Phipps DJ, Shapson S. Knowledge mobilisation builds local research collaboration for social innovation. Evid Policy. 2009;5(3):211–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Powell A, Davies H, Nutley S. Missing in action? The role of the knowledge mobilisation literature in developing knowledge mobilisation practices. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2017;13(2):201–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge our project partners for their contributions to the design and delivery of the capacity building initiatives outlined in this paper.

Funding

This work was supported by The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre through the NHMRC partnership centre grant scheme (Grant ID: GNT9100003) with the Australian Government Department of Health, ACT Health, Cancer Council Australia, NSW Ministry of Health, Wellbeing SA, Tasmanian Department of Health, and VicHealth. It is administered by the Sax Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SR and YL conceived the project. PW developed the evaluation framework with input from SR, YL, BS and LM. SR and PW drafted the manuscript. YL, LM, BS and MI critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of this paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pippy Walker.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Evaluation of this approach has been approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 2020/647 and Ref: 2022/620). All participants will be informed about the evaluation and consent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rowbotham, S., Walker, P., Marks, L. et al. Building capacity for citizen science in health promotion: a collaborative knowledge mobilisation approach. Res Involv Engagem 9, 36 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00451-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00451-4

Keywords