Qualitative assessment of the citizen science approach to foster public partnerships for pandemic preparedness and response in South and Southeast Asian countries ================================================================================================================================================================== * Dinesh Kumar * Ingo Hauter * Felipe C. Canlas * Firli Yogiteten Sunaryoko * Gyanu Raja Maharjan * Md. Mazharul Anowar * Harjyot Khosa * Yi-Roe Tan * Peiling Yap ## Abstract Citizen science (CS) promotes the inclusion of diverse stakeholders and offers a scientific in-depth understanding of community engagement to build trust, increase knowledge, and facilitate policymaking. Study aimed to understand concepts, practices, approaches, and sustainability issues of CS among citizens in five South and Southeast Asian countries. Qualitative study from October 2022 to March 2023 was carried in Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Philippines, and Indonesia. In each country, four focus group discussions were conducted with an overall total of 130 participants. Content analysis and coding were carried out for narrative responses of participants. Across all countries, the participants collectively comprehended the term "research" while referring to CS. Participants also related social responsibility and capacity building of citizens to CS. In terms of their contributions to pandemic response, participants stated compliance with government guidelines, helping to create awareness, and providing necessary support and assistance. Participants value personal achievement, satisfaction, happiness, and a chance to build social capital while participating in CS activities. Participants were ready to actively contribute to CS activities and share their opinions with stakeholders such as policymakers and researchers but felt that a lack of personal confidence, ineffective communication, and insufficient translation of their opinions to actions could deter them. Creation of an organization or network, provision of budget for activities, incentives to participants, and transportation assistance were considered as resources needed for the sustainability of CS. Participants expressed their readiness for CS activities considering personal and social factors, while systemic support is needed for sustained participation. Keywords * COVID-19 * Qualitative research * community participation ## Background Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the daily lives of people. In addition to its impact on human health, it has disrupted livelihoods and caused intense and detrimental effects on trade and economies. In resource-limited countries, especially those in the South and Southeast Asian regions, the pandemic had an overwhelming effect due to high population density, limited healthcare facilities, poor socio-economic environment, and inaccessible or inequitable social protection schemes.1 These countries witnessed how pandemic has threatened the progress of Sustainable Development Goals.2 Administrations and health systems were inundated by the pandemic as citizens, health care professionals, program managers, and policy makers battle to contain COVID-19. People’s cooperation and trust became necessary to manage, and proved challenging with the differential experiences of population groups. Adoption of various mechanisms of community engagement was thus encouraged to facilitate the implementation and adoption of COVID-19 pandemic control strategies.3 With a need to engage communities, risk communication was observed to be inadequate as it followed a top-down approach. Analysis observed negative impacts on people with poor experiences.4 The prodigious nature of COVID-19 left with immense experiences among people, health professionals, and program managers. Systematic capture and analysis of these familiarities became a rational basis for building effective community engagement to prepare and manage public health emergencies. Citizen science (CS) is a scientific approach to effectively engage people to manage public health issues. We define CS as a practice of public participation, collaboration, and co-creation in all aspects of scientific research to build trust, increase knowledge, and facilitate policymaking to address public health challenges.5 This approach promotes the inclusion of diverse stakeholders like local communities, researchers, policymakers, development partners, and program managers in various mechanisms of engagement with science.6 Due to its adoption across different domains, typological analysis of the literature has shown significant variation in the understanding and interpretation of CS as well as its multiple forms of implementation. Consequently, further studies to understand the various interpretations of CS have been proposed.7 CS has piqued the interest of policymakers, program managers, and researchers as a way to promote productivity and democratize the process of scientific knowledge-making, allowing collaborations between these stakeholder groups to address societal problems.8 CS works to improve understanding of health issues from people’s perspective and concurrently allows people to understand issues more logically and scientifically. Indeed, citizens have the right to raise and investigate their questions in the field of public health research. They also have the eagerness and capability to design, implement, and manage research projects but knowledge-sharing gap still exists between citizens and researchers.9 Therefore, in the assessment of the CS approach and definition, it is also important to gather perspectives of citizens to ensure resonance of such an approach with them. As COVID-19 has had a profound impact on people’s lives and economies, a scientific approach to understand citizen’s engagement is proposed for pandemic preparedness and response. COVID-19 pandemic was used as a socially relevant use case where citizens exhibited diverse methods of participation in the management of the pandemic. Their experiences were assessed with scope and potential usability of CS approach for effective engagement in pandemic preparedness and response. Present study was carried out to understand concepts, practices, approaches, and sustainability issues of CS among citizens in five South and Southeast Asian countries. The objectives of the study were to (i) assess awareness, relatability, and acceptability of local communities to CS participatory approaches for pandemic preparedness and response; (ii) assess the level of readiness in communities to participate in CS activities; and (iii) identify barriers and facilitators for communities to participate in CS. ## Material and Methods A sequential mixed-method study was carried out in Nepal (Rural Development Foundation), Bangladesh (Rural Development Agency), India (Health Applications), Philippines (Wireless Access to Health), and Indonesia (Climate Institute) from October 2022 to March 2023. The procedures and findings from the quantitative segment were published separately.10 This paper focus only on the qualitative segment based on participants’ experiences during COVID-19 pandemic. In each country, 4 focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 6 to 8 participants per FGD. Number of required FGDs was based on substantiated number for effective discussion and thematic saturation. For comprehensive assessment, participants were purposively sampled to include youths (≥18 years of age), marginalized and indigenous communities (people living with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria; ethically/socio-economic marginalized), community health workers (last mile health workers as a direct link between people and local health services), and general population. The participants were sampled from a pool of people who participated in a survey and gave consent to be re-contacted for FGD (57.2% of 2912 survey participants), as part of this mixed-method study 10. Participants less than 18 years of age, with severe mental health conditions, or not conversant in English or the local languages were excluded. ### Data collection tools and technique Project staff carrying out the FGDs of each country were trained on standard FGD methodology using a semi-structured FGD guide. The guide was based on the precaution adoption process model and the theory of planned behaviour,11,12 and consisted of questions exploring the concept of CS and existing CS activities related to pandemic management (Supplementary 1). Questions were also devised to understand the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of CS activities, as well as sustainability concerns. Participant information sheet, informed consent form, and FGD questions were translated from English to local languages (Nepali, Bangla, Hindi, Bahasa Indonesia, and Filipino) by the country team. Venues to conduct FGDs were selected by project staff to ensure convenience, privacy, and accessibility for study participants. Before the conduct of FGDs, participants were shown a video and infographics in the local languages explaining the meaning of CS, along with its various approaches, to acquaint the FGD participants with CS before responding to questions (Supplementary 2). A local country team comprising site investigators and project staff reviewed the study materials in local languages for clarity and understandability. ### Data analysis Audio recordings of the FGDs were transcribed verbatim and translated from local languages to English. Collected data was coded and analyzed using qualitative content analysis methods through the steps of reading, coding, analysis, data display, and reduction as well as data interpretation, by trained project staff, supervised by the site investigators. The initial level of coding was done by the team to observe, compare, and identify similarities and differences in the data. Subsequently, second level of pattern coding was done by the country team for content analysis for participant’s narrative statement to extract subthemes and themes (main topic/subject/message). The initial findings were shared with other country teams in virtual workshops to validate analysis and coding. Finally, triangulation of patterns was done wherein subthemes and themes were refined and grouped based on similar patterns and meaning, after obtaining consensus from country teams to ensure face and content validity. It was done till thematic saturation was obtained i.e., no further refinement for better clarity was possible by country teams during workshops. ### Ethics Statement Prior ethical approval was sought first from the Ethical Review Board (ERB), United Nations University Institute, Macau (Reference No: 202206/01), and subsequently from ethical/regulatory committee of each country. All participants gave informed consent and participated in focus group discussion. They agreed upon location and time of group discussion along with permission to audio record. Country-specific data and personal information are securely stored with the country team and no personal information of participants was shared while carrying out the analysis. ## Results A total of 130 individuals participated in 20 FGDs across 5 countries (India: 27; Nepal: 25; Bangladesh: 29; Indonesia: 24; and Philippines: 25). On average, each FGD lasted for about 45 minutes (minimum: 35 minutes; maximum 90 minutes). While responding to FGD questions, participants related them with their perceptions for COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent response measures by their respective governments. Domains of FGD are summarized by the themes, subthemes, and illustrative quotes from the participants. Firstly, concepts of CS and participants’ experiences and potential roles in pandemic preparedness and response were explored (Table 1): View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/21/2024.08.21.24312377/T1) Table 1: Thematic analysis of citizen science (CS) concept and participants’ potential roles in CS along with lived experiences during COVID-19 pandemic in South and Southeast Asian countries, 2022-23. 1. Understanding of CS as a concept Across all countries, while referring to CS, the participants collectively comprehended the term "research". Participants understood that CS is possibly related to capacity building to learn and empower themselves in the field of research. CS as an engagement process was considered as an opportunity to participate in generating and analyzing data for effective implementation of control measures. It was also viewed as a social responsibility, especially in India. Distinctively, it was referred to as an awareness mechanism to improve knowledge about pandemic response in Bangladesh. 2. Experiences in COVID-19 pandemic response When participants were asked about their lived experiences during the pandemic in terms of nature of their engagement in pandemic response, majority of the participants (especially in India and Philippines) stated their participation by adhering to government guidelines in terms of following COVID-19 appropriate behaviour like wearing masks, maintaining physical distancing, and hand sanitization. They also responded that they complied with digital interventions especially downloading mobile-based applications to give personal information to assist the governments in tracing the spread of infection. Largely in India, participants said that they actively came forward to help fellow citizens and gave them support in terms of providing food, medicine, masks, and sanitizers. They shared about being part of a team with the local health authorities in organizing community-based awareness activities to provide knowledge about disease, its control measures, and importance of vaccination to reduce disease transmission. 3. Potential roles in pandemic preparedness and response After reflecting on their experiences, participants were asked about their likely roles in future pandemics. Across all countries, based on their lived experiences, most considered their likely participation to provide/assist food, masks, and sanitizers along with creating awareness. Participants also stated that as citizens, their role can be to ensure compliance by fellow citizens to government guidelines. Some stated that they can contribute based on their skill sets (e.g., computer skills for data entry) to assist pandemic preparedness and response. After showing concept and meaning of CS using infographics, participants mentioned advantages and disadvantages of CS and highlighted potential facilitators and barriers to their participation in CS (Table 2): View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/21/2024.08.21.24312377/T2) Table 2: Thematic analysis of perceived issues (advantages, disadvantages, facilitators, and barriers) of citizen science (CS) to foster public partnerships for pandemic preparedness and response in South and Southeast Asian countries, 2022-23. 1. Advantages and disadvantages of CS While speaking about advantages, across all countries, participants stated that CS is a people-centric approach that can be used to understand reality on the ground, gather people to encourage exchange opinions, and identify people-led solutions. Potentially, CS can build the capacity of people by generating knowledge and creating awareness about their health and pandemic control measures. The disadvantages of CS were largely linked to individual factors such as lack of capacity or unwillingness to share opinions that will likely cause ineffective participation. Based on their COVID-19 experience, participants expressed a potential risk of infection to themselves and their families while gathering people in CS activities. 2. Facilitators and barriers to participation in CS activities While assessing for potential facilitating factors, participants again expressed individual-related factors. In India, CS activities are expected to instil a sense of achievement, satisfaction, and happiness. In Philippines, potential chances to gain new knowledge and build social networks were also considered to be facilitators. Whereas, in India and Nepal, majority of the participants stated that a sense of social duty and service during a pandemic enables participation. Similar to facilitators, individual-related factors were also considered to be barriers to CS activities. Nature of concerns varied across countries, such as the lack of information in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Philippines; lack of education, confidence, and individual level conflicts in India and Nepal; while lack of time to participate was expressed as a barrier across all countries. Participants also mentioned that the nature of facilitation can have an impact on the level of participation. In Nepal, participants said that they tend to feel demotivated if other participants choose not to participate, while one is making an effort. In addition to individual-related factors, organizational factors such as unengaged organizers/facilitators and lack of transportation assistance can pose barriers to participate. Finally, factors related to interactions with stakeholders (Table 3) and sustainability and resources needed (Table 4) to foster strong public partnerships for pandemic preparedness and response were discussed: View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/21/2024.08.21.24312377/T3) Table 3: Thematic analysis of factors related to interaction with stakeholders for citizen science (CS) to foster public partnerships for pandemic preparedness and response in South and Southeast Asian countries, 2022-23. View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/21/2024.08.21.24312377/T4) Table 4: Thematic analysis of perceived sustainability factors of and needed resources for citizen science (CS) to foster public partnerships for pandemic preparedness and response in South and Southeast Asian countries, 2022-23. 1. Factors related to interaction with stakeholders When asked about factors to consider when interacting with stakeholders such as policymakers and researchers, most factors were related to individual characteristics, effective communication, and provision of feedback. Active participation and a strong sense of collectiveness were raised as important factors. In India and Indonesia, contextual awareness of stakeholders and their ability to correctly understand participants were shared as likely factors. Participants expressed their lack of confidence while sharing opinions with stakeholders due to differences in their level of education and language which is likely to result in misunderstandings. In Indonesia, participants expressed concerns about lack of utilization of their feedbacks even though they had previously shared their opinions, data, and information in various activities like surveys. 2. Sustainability factors and resources needed for CS When asked to express potential sustainability factors, the importance of local mechanisms to sustain people’s participation in CS activities was mentioned in Indonesia. The need for health system support, provision of incentives (monetary and non-monetary), and transportation assistance, especially to women, were delineated for CS sustenance in India and Bangladesh. Contextually, in India and Nepal, cultural factors were expected to play a vital role in the sustainability of CS. In India, introduction of CS in formal education system as a distinct identity was also considered as a sustainability factor to teach concepts and applications of CS. A participant from India suggested that the use of a scientific approach to monitor and evaluate CS activities for concurrent refinements can further enhance sustainability. The requirement of resources was substantiated to initiate and sustain CS activities. A formal structure such as the establishment of an organization or network and creation of infrastructures and centres along with budgetary support were considered as resources needed for CS in pandemic preparedness and response. ## Discussion Current study captured COVID-19 lived experiences and qualitatively explored the potential application of CS approach to encourage people’s participation in pandemic preparedness and response. The understanding of CS, issues related to citizens’ participation, resources needed, and sustainability factors were discussed with the study participants. Contextual sensitiveness was considered in the present study with the inclusion of South and Southeast Asian countries. Population representativeness was ensured by including diverse groups such as youth, general population, marginalized and indigenous groups, and community health workers. To the best of our knowledge, there has been a lack of examination of the citizens’ perspectives toward the CS approach in pandemic preparedness and response. Hence, this study contributes to the knowledge gap in applications of CS in the pandemic context. Thematic analysis of FGDs involving participants across five countries gave an insight into the various facets of CS and its applications. CS was expressed as a social concept, especially in India and Nepal. Across all countries, CS was viewed to have potential to capacitate and empower citizens while working with researchers. It was largely appreciated in the backdrop of their lived experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mostly in India and Nepal, their participation in its control was not only limited to comply with government guidelines but was extended to assist people with masks, sanitizers, food, and medicine. During pandemic, people created awareness among citizens and shared personal information about their COVID-19 status to assist governments in monitoring the disease spread. These experiences shaped their responses toward CS as COVID-19 resonated in their voices and quotes. CS was considered to be a people-centric approach with the advantage of helping the policymakers reduce disease transmission with citizens’ participation. Across all countries, individual-level factors such as a sense of satisfaction, social duty, and potential to build their capacity were considered facilitating factors to participate in CS activities. Major disadvantages and barriers to partake in activities were lack of time, confidence, and capacity (knowledge/skills), insufficient transportation assistance, and risk of infection. Individual-level factors that are related to the interaction and sharing of opinions with stakeholders such as policymakers and researchers include active participation and attitude of participants, communication and fear of misunderstanding, and actual application of their responses in implementing strategies. Across all countries, provision of incentives and transportation assistance were reflected to sustain CS activities, along with resources like organizational support and funding. In Indonesia, participants expressed that CS activities will be sustainable when they take into account local contexts and are developed based on existing mechanisms. Findings from this study resonated with the literature. Individual-level factors like self-esteem and self-efficacy along with health status were observed to be related to community participation.13 Level of participation was found to be affected by availability, geographic location, and socio-economic status of community.14 Subjective norms, cognitive ability of participants, experience of disaster, and perception of risk were delineated as individual-level factors for participation.15 Community engagement in emergencies was observed to be improved with accessibility to internet. It showed further improvement in sustenance of availability of health care services.16 Evidence also showed that enhanced community participation is affected by an established management system, capacity building of community, and experiences and vulnerability of disaster.17 Current study summates that COVID-19 experiences gave rationale and ways to raise resources to conduct CS activities for meaningful and effective participation. CS makes public participation in science more democratized while involving researchers makes it more rational and objective.18 People being the recipients of policies and programs should have their voices included. Readiness of citizens should be ensured by prior and repeated sensitization about CS approaches and ways of participation. To provide local resonance with the CS approach, it is vital to consider the contextual settings while studying the values, norms, and culture. Individual capacity in terms of baseline knowledge and skill, awareness, and cognition needs to be mapped to tailor engagement efforts. It is evident from current analysis that people are ready to participate but they need to be informed and their fears (infection, miscommunication, and being misunderstood by stakeholders) needs to be addressed. Efforts need to be targeted to make people comfortable and respected without any language barriers. Measures need to be in place to identify/foresee potential conflicts between people and train for conflict resolution strategies to make participation efficient and effective. A formal feedback structure should also be available to inform the public about the utility of their participation and the inclusion of their opinions in formulating interventions and policies. It is evident that feedback increases the level of motivation and it should be specific with reasons or criterion-based.19 Current study has its strengths in terms of in-depth examination with a structured inquiry through conduct of FGDs by local teams in local languages. Participants were contacted after obtaining consent while carrying out the quantitative survey. Study had a sufficient sample size with enriched narrative quotes representative of the population (youth, marginalized and indigenous, and general) along with community health workers. It covered provider and beneficiary perspectives and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, and gave relatable responses towards pandemic preparedness and control. Similar and differing views of CS were analyzed and compared across five countries. Although generalization of qualitative information poses one of the limitations along with management of voluminous data.20 Our findings can be triangulated with the quantitative segment of our mixed-method study.10 Country-specific teams led by site researchers maintained rigor for data collection, and thematic analysis of quotes made analysis systematic and contextual. The concept of CS was relatively new to most participants making it hard for some to understand and relate to the questions. We tried to mitigate this by introducing CS at the start with a video and infographics in local languages. ## Conclusions In-depth analysis suggested that people are ready to participate with stakeholders such as policymakers and researchers, considering their social duty driven by attitude and culture. Based on their experiences during COVID-19, participation in CS activities viewed as an opportunity to learn new knowledge and scientific skills while working with researchers. Discomfort while communicating with other stakeholders was conveyed due to limited knowledge and skills of participants. The need for CS organisation or network, inclusion in education system, funding provisions, and incentives to participants were shared as sustainable factors and resources. As expected, participants’ responses in current study resonated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Future work can explore the application of CS in other disease outbreaks/epidemics. ## Data Availability Data can be provided upon request. ## Competing Interests Authors declare that there are no competing financial and personal interests that could have appeared to influence the reported work. ## Funding This study has been supported by Fondation Botnar (REG-20-003) through the International Digital Health & AI Research Collaborative (I-DAIR). ## Author contributions All authors contributed to the conception of this study and the development of all study materials. YRT and PY oversaw the study and had full access to all data. DK, IH, FCC, FYS, GRM, MMA, and HK were responsible for data collection in their respective countries and had access to their own country’s data. All authors contributed to data analyses. DK drafted the paper, which was commented upon by all authors prior to submission. All authors gave the final approval of the version to be published. ## Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank people who participated in study along with members of community-based organizations. * Received August 21, 2024. * Revision received August 21, 2024. * Accepted August 21, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Rasul G, Nepal AK, Hussain A, et al. Socio-Economic Implications of COVID-19 Pandemic in South Asia: Emerging Risks and Growing Challenges. Frontiers in Sociology. 2021;6. doi:10.3389/fsoc.2021.629693 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fsoc.2021.629693&link_type=DOI) 2. 2.Rassanjani S, Risky N, Maz D, Alqarni W, Achdan Tharis M. Impact of COVID-19 on Economic Activities and Poverty Threats in the Asia-Pacific Region. Policy & Governance Review. 2021;5(1). doi:10.30589/pgr.v5i1.353 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.30589/pgr.v5i1.353&link_type=DOI) 3. 3.Gilmore B, Ndejjo R, Tchetchia A, et al. Community engagement for COVID-19 prevention and control: A rapid evidence synthesis. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(10). doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003188 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTI6IjUvMTAvZTAwMzE4OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA4LzIxLzIwMjQuMDguMjEuMjQzMTIzNzcuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 4. 4.Khan S, Mishra J, Ahmed N, et al. Risk communication and community engagement during COVID-19. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2022;74. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102903 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102903&link_type=DOI) 5. 5.Tan YR, Agrawal A, Matsoso MP, et al. A call for citizen science in pandemic preparedness and response: Beyond data collection. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(6). doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009389 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjcvNi9lMDA5Mzg5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDgvMjEvMjAyNC4wOC4yMS4yNDMxMjM3Ny5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 6. 6.Vohland K, Land-Zandstra A, Ceccaroni L, et al. The Science of Citizen Science.; 2021. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4&link_type=DOI) 7. 7.Haklay M, Fraisl D, Greshake Tzovaras B, et al. Contours of citizen science: A vignette study. R Soc Open Sci. 2021;8(8). doi:10.1098/rsos.202108 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1098/rsos.202108&link_type=DOI) 8. 8.Sauermann H, Vohland K, Antoniou V, et al. Citizen science and sustainability transitions. Res Policy. 2020;49(5). doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.103978 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.respol.2020.103978&link_type=DOI) 9. 9.Wildschut D. The need for citizen science in the transition to a sustainable peer-to-peer-society. Futures. 2017;91. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.010 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.010&link_type=DOI) 10. 10.Tan YR, Nguyen MD, Mubaira CA, et al. Building citizen science intelligence for outbreak preparedness and response: A mixed-method study in nine countries to assess knowledge, readiness and feasibility. BMJ Glob Health. 2024;9(3). doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014490 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjkvMy9lMDE0NDkwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDgvMjEvMjAyNC4wOC4yMS4yNDMxMjM3Ny5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 11. 11.Weinstein ND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol. 1988;7(4). doi:10.1037/0278-6133.7.4.355 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0278-6133.7.4.355&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3049068&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F21%2F2024.08.21.24312377.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1988P704300005&link_type=ISI) 12. 12.Ajzen I. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2). 13. 13.Kim H min. Effects of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and disability acceptance on the social participation of people with physical disabilities: Focusing on COVID-19 pandemic. Brain Behav. 2023;13(1). doi:10.1002/brb3.2824 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/brb3.2824&link_type=DOI) 14. 14.Dalhatu S, Ghani NA, Veysel B. A systematic review on factors affecting community participation towards polio immunization in Nigeria. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2015;6(2S1). doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2s1p407 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2s1p407&link_type=DOI) 15. 15.Que T, Wu Y, Hu S, Cai J, Jiang N, Xing H. Factors Influencing Public Participation in Community Disaster Mitigation Activities: A Comparison of Model and Nonmodel Disaster Mitigation Communities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19). doi:10.3390/ijerph191912278 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph191912278&link_type=DOI) 16. 16.Koon LM, Greiman L, Schulz JA, Goddard KS, Nzuki IM, Hall JP. Examining the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on community engagement for people with mobility disabilities. Disabil Health J. 2022;15(1). doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101212 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101212&link_type=DOI) 17. 17.Islam E, Wahab HA, Benson OG. Structural and operational factors as determinant of meaningful community participation in sustainable disaster recovery programs: The case of Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2020;50. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101710 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101710&link_type=DOI) 18. 18. Pearse H. Deliberation, Citizen Science and Covid-19. Political Quarterly. 2020;91(3). doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12869 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1467-923X.12869&link_type=DOI) 19. 19.Fong CJ, Patall EA, Vasquez AC, Stautberg S. A Meta-Analysis of Negative Feedback on Intrinsic Motivation. Educ Psychol Rev. 2019;31(1). doi:10.1007/s10648-018-9446-6 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10648-018-9446-6&link_type=DOI) 20. 20.Anderson C. Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research: Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative Research. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010;74(8).