Abby C King1, Sandra J Winter2, Jylana L Sheats2, Lisa G Rosas3, Matthew P Buman4, Deborah Salvo5, Nicole M Rodriguez2, Rebecca A Seguin6, Mika Moran7, Randi Garber8, Bonnie Broderick9, Susan G Zieff10, Olga Lucia Sarmiento11, Silvia A Gonzalez11, Ann Banchoff2, Juan Rivera Dommarco12. 1. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, and Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Research & Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 2. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 3. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. 4. School of Nutrition and Health Promotion, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ. 5. Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Austin, TX. 6. Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca NY. 7. The University of Haifa School of Public Health, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, the University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel. 8. Eshel-The Association for the Planning and Development of Services for the Aged in Israel, Jerusalem, Israel. 9. Santa Clara County Public Health Department, San Jose CA. 10. Laboratory for Studies in Physical Activity, Culture & Education, Department of Kinesiology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA. 11. School of Medicine Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia. 12. Centro de Investigación en Nutrición y Salud, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While technology is a major driver of many of society's comforts, conveniences, and advances, it has been responsible, in a significant way, for engineering regular physical activity and a number of other positive health behaviors out of people's daily lives. A key question concerns how to harness information and communication technologies (ICT) to bring about positive changes in the health promotion field. One such approach involves community-engaged "citizen science," in which local residents leverage the potential of ICT to foster data-driven consensus-building and mobilization efforts that advance physical activity at the individual, social, built environment, and policy levels. METHOD: The history of citizen science in the research arena is briefly described and an evidence-based method that embeds citizen science in a multi-level, multi-sectoral community-based participatory research framework for physical activity promotion is presented. RESULTS: Several examples of this citizen science-driven community engagement framework for promoting active lifestyles, called "Our Voice", are discussed, including pilot projects from diverse communities in the U.S. as well as internationally. CONCLUSIONS: The opportunities and challenges involved in leveraging citizen science activities as part of a broader population approach to promoting regular physical activity are explored. The strategic engagement of citizen scientists from socio-demographically diverse communities across the globe as both assessment as well as change agents provides a promising, potentially low-cost and scalable strategy for creating more active, healthful, and equitable neighborhoods and communities worldwide.
PURPOSE: While technology is a major driver of many of society's comforts, conveniences, and advances, it has been responsible, in a significant way, for engineering regular physical activity and a number of other positive health behaviors out of people's daily lives. A key question concerns how to harness information and communication technologies (ICT) to bring about positive changes in the health promotion field. One such approach involves community-engaged "citizen science," in which local residents leverage the potential of ICT to foster data-driven consensus-building and mobilization efforts that advance physical activity at the individual, social, built environment, and policy levels. METHOD: The history of citizen science in the research arena is briefly described and an evidence-based method that embeds citizen science in a multi-level, multi-sectoral community-based participatory research framework for physical activity promotion is presented. RESULTS: Several examples of this citizen science-driven community engagement framework for promoting active lifestyles, called "Our Voice", are discussed, including pilot projects from diverse communities in the U.S. as well as internationally. CONCLUSIONS: The opportunities and challenges involved in leveraging citizen science activities as part of a broader population approach to promoting regular physical activity are explored. The strategic engagement of citizen scientists from socio-demographically diverse communities across the globe as both assessment as well as change agents provides a promising, potentially low-cost and scalable strategy for creating more active, healthful, and equitable neighborhoods and communities worldwide.
Entities:
Keywords:
active living; citizen science; community; health equity; physical activity promotion; population health
Authors: Matthew P Buman; Sandra J Winter; Cathleen Baker; Eric B Hekler; Jennifer J Otten; Abby C King Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Matthew P Buman; Farryl Bertmann; Eric B Hekler; Sandra J Winter; Jylana L Sheats; Abby C King; Christopher M Wharton Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Sandra J Winter; Lisa Goldman Rosas; Priscilla Padilla Romero; Jylana L Sheats; Matthew P Buman; Cathleen Baker; Abby C King Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2016-10
Authors: Abby C King; Robert Friedman; Bess Marcus; Cynthia Castro; Melissa Napolitano; David Ahn; Lawrence Baker Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jennifer R Harris; Paul Burton; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Klaus Lindpaintner; Marianna Bledsoe; Anthony J Brookes; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Rex Chisholm; David Cox; Mylène Deschênes; Isabel Fortier; Pierre Hainaut; Robert Hewitt; Jane Kaye; Jan-Eric Litton; Andres Metspalu; Bill Ollier; Lyle J Palmer; Aarno Palotie; Markus Pasterk; Markus Perola; Peter H J Riegman; Gert-Jan van Ommen; Martin Yuille; Kurt Zatloukal Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Lisa G Rosas; Deborah Salvo; Sandra J Winter; David Cortes; Juan Rivera; Nicole M Rodriguez; Abby C King Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Susan G Zieff; Elaine A Musselman; Olga L Sarmiento; Silvia A Gonzalez; Nicolas Aguilar-Farias; Sandra J Winter; J Aaron Hipp; Karoll Quijano; Abby C King Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Robert W Korycinski; Bethany L Tennant; Michelle A Cawley; Bonny Bloodgood; April Y Oh; David Berrigan Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Sandra J Winter; Jylana L Sheats; Deborah Salvo; Jorge A Banda; Jennifer Quinn; Brooke Ray Rivera; Abby C King Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: María Alejandra Rubio; Camilo Triana; Abby C King; Lisa G Rosas; Ann W Banchoff; Oscar Rubiano; Benjamin W Chrisinger; Olga L Sarmiento Journal: Health Promot Int Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 2.483