RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Evidence-based practices (EBPs) provide strategies to improve the health, welfare and productivity of animal species. However, ensuring implementation and uptake into routine practice of these EBPs is often challenging. In human health research, one approach used to improve uptake of EBPs is the use of theories, models and/or frameworks (TMFs), however the extent of the use of this approach in veterinary medicine is unknown. The aim of this scoping review was to identify existing veterinary uses of TMFs to inform the uptake of EBPs, and to understand the focus of these applications. Searches were conducted in CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus, alongside grey literature, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. The search strategy consisted of a list of known existing TMFs that have been used to improve uptake of EBPs in human health, alongside more generic terminology for implementation and terminology relevant to veterinary medicine. Peer reviewed journal articles and grey literature detailing the use of a TMF to inform uptake of EBP(s) in a veterinary context were included. The search identified 68 studies that met the eligibility criteria. Included studies represented a diverse spread of countries, areas of veterinary concern and EBP. A range of 28 different TMFs were used, although the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) predominated, featuring in 46% of included studies (n = 31). The majority of studies (n = 65, 96%) utilised a TMF with the aim to understand and/or explain what influences implementation outcomes. Only 8 studies (12%) reported the use of a TMF alongside/in conjunction with the actual implementation of an intervention. It is clear there has been some use to date of TMFs to inform uptake of EBPs in veterinary medicine, however it has been sporadic. There has been a heavy reliance on usage of the TPB and other similar classic theories. This has typically been to inform the understanding of factors, such as barriers and facilitators, that may influence the outcome of an implementation effort without then applying this knowledge to the actual implementation of an intervention. Furthermore, there has been a lack of acknowledgement of wider contextual factors and consideration of sustainability of interventions. There is clear potential to increase and expand the usage of TMFs to improve uptake of EBPs in veterinary medicine, including utilising a wider range of TMFs and developing interdisciplinary collaborations with human implementation experts.
