Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1126–1138 | Cite as

Using Citizen Scientists to Gather, Analyze, and Disseminate Information About Neighborhood Features That Affect Active Living

  • Sandra J. Winter
  • Lisa Goldman Rosas
  • Priscilla Padilla Romero
  • Jylana L. Sheats
  • Matthew P. Buman
  • Cathleen Baker
  • Abby C. King
Original Paper

Abstract

Many Latinos are insufficiently active, partly due to neighborhoods with little environmental support for physical activity. Multi-level approaches are needed to create health-promoting neighborhoods in disadvantaged communities. Participant “citizen scientists” were adolescent (n = 10, mean age = 12.8 ± 0.6 years) and older adult (n = 10, mean age = 71.3 ± 6.5 years), low income Latinos in North Fair Oaks, California. Citizen scientists conducted environmental assessments to document perceived barriers to active living using the Stanford Healthy Neighborhood Discovery Tool, which records GPS-tracked walking routes, photographs, audio narratives, and survey responses. Using a community-engaged approach, citizen scientists subsequently attended a community meeting to engage in advocacy training, review assessment data, prioritize issues to address and brainstorm potential solutions and partners. Citizen scientists each conducted a neighborhood environmental assessment and recorded 366 photographs and audio narratives. Adolescents (n = 4), older adults (n = 7) and community members (n = 4) collectively identified reducing trash and improving personal safety and sidewalk quality as the priority issues to address. Three adolescent and four older adult citizen scientists volunteered to present study findings to key stakeholders. This study demonstrated that with minimal training, low-income, Latino adolescent and older adult citizen scientists can: (1) use innovative technology to gather information about features of their neighborhood environment that influence active living, (2) analyze their information and identify potential solutions, and (3) engage with stakeholders to advocate for the development of healthier neighborhoods.

Keywords

Physical activity Built environment Latinos Mobile technology Community engaged approach 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The project described was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through UL1 RR025744. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. At the time this study was conducted Drs. Winter and Sheats were supported by US Public Health Service grant 5T32L007034 from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. The following individuals assisted with this project: Nkeiruka Umeh, Martell Hesketh, Cynthia Perez, Aldo Chazaro, Alexis Fields. Rhonda McClinton Brown and Jill Evans from the Stanford University Office of Community Health have provided much support for this and other community based projects using the Stanford Healthy Neighborhood Discovery Tool. The authors are grateful to have worked with such thoughtful and engaged citizen scientist co-researchers.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors of this paper do not report any conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999–2010. JAMA. 2012;307(5):491–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fogelholm M. Physical activity, fitness and fatness: relations to mortality, morbidity and disease risk factors. A systematic review. Obes Rev. 2010;11(3):202–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tucker JM, Welk GJ, Beyler NK. Physical activity in U.S. adults: compliance with the physical activity guidelines for Americans. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(4):454–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drieling RL, Goldman Rosas L, Ma J, Stafford RS. community resource utilization, psychosocial health, and sociodemographic factors associated with diet and physical activity among low-income obese Latino immigrants. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2014;114(2):257–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feng J, Glass TA, Curriero FC, Stewart WF, Schwartz BS. The built environment and obesity: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. Health Place. 2010;16(2):175–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    King AC, Sallis JF, Frank LD, Saelens BE, Cain K, Conway TL, et al. Aging in neighborhoods differing in walkability and income: associations with physical activity and obesity in older adults. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(10):1525–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cutts BB, Darby KJ, Boone CG, Brewis A. City structure, obesity, and environmental justice: an integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to walkable streets and park access. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(9):1314–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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. Trans Behav Med. 2012;2(2):249–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Winter SJ, Buman MP, Sheats JL, Hekler EB, Otten JJ, Baker C, et al. Harnessing the potential of older adults to measure and modify their environments: long-term successes of the Neighborhood Eating and Activity Advocacy Team (NEAAT) Study. Trans Behav Med. 2014;4(2):226–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buman MP, Winter SJ, Sheats JL, Hekler EB, Otten JJ, Grieco LA, et al. The stanford healthy neighborhood discovery tool: a computerized tool to assess active living environments. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(4):e41–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lopez MH, Gonzalez-Barrera A, Patten E, Center PH. Closing the digital divide: Latinos and technology adoption. Washington: Pew Hispanic Center; 2013.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ford ME, Siminoff LA, Pickelsimer E, Mainous AG, Smith DW, Diaz VA, et al. Unequal burden of disease, unequal participation in clinical trials: solutions from African American and Latino community members. Health Soc Work. 2013;38(1):29–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Victorson D, Banas J, Smith J, Languido L, Shen E, Gutierrez S, et al. eSalud: designing and implementing culturally competent eHealth research with Latino patient populations. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(12):2259–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whittemore R, Jaser SS, Faulkner MS, Murphy K, Delamater A, Grey M, et al. Type 1 diabetes eHealth psychoeducation: youth recruitment, participation, and satisfaction. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(1):e15. doi:10.2196/jmir.2170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trickett E, Beehler S, Deutsch C, Green L, Hawe P, McLeroy K, et al. Advancing the science of community-level interventions. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(8):1410–1419.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Behav. 1988;15(4):351–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, Artiola JF, Maier RM, Gandolfi AJ. Building a co-created citizen science program with gardeners neighboring a superfund site: the Gardenroots case study. In: Caron R, Merrick J, editors. Public health: improving health via inter-professional collaborations. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers Inc; 2014.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bonney R, Ballard H, Jordan R, McCallie E, Phillips T, Shirk J, et al. Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. Washington: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE); 2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wiggins A, Crowston K, editors. From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of citizen science. In: Proceedings of the forty-fourth Hawai’i international conference on system science (HICSS-44), Koloa, HI; 2011.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldman Rosas L, Thiyagarajan S, Goldstein B, Drieling R, Padilla Romero PP, Ma J, et al. The effectiveness of two community-based weight loss strategies among obese, low-income US Latinos. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(4):537–50.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2014.10.020.
  22. 22.
    Al Stewart, Km Mills, Ac King, Wl Haskell, Gillis D, Pl Ritter. CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire for older adults: outcomes for interventions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(0195–9131):1126–41.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grow H, Saelens B, Kerr J, Durant N, Norman G, Sallis J. Where are youth active? Roles of proximity, active transport, and built environment. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:2071–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sallis JF, Pinski RB, Grossman RM, Patterson TL, Nader PR. The development of self-efficacy scales for healthrelated diet and exercise behaviors. Health Educ Behav. 1988;3(3):283–92.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Minaker L, Raine K, Wild T, Nykiforuk C, Thompson M, Frank L. Objective food environments and health outcomes. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(3):289–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1552–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Perry M, Williams RL, Wallerstein N, Waitzkin H. Social capital and health care experiences among low-income individuals. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(2):330.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q. 1995;19(2):189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prevention Institute Oakland, California. 2014. http://www.preventioninstitute.org/index.php.
  30. 30.
    Israel BA, Coombe CM, Cheezum RR, Schulz AJ, McGranaghan RJ, Lichtenstein R, et al. Community-based participatory research: a capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(11):2094–102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Winter S, Buman M, Sheats J, Hekler E, Otten J, Baker C, et al. Harnessing the potential of older adults to measure and modify their environments: long-term successes of the Neighborhood Eating and Activity Advocacy Team (NEAAT) Study. Trans Behav Med. 2014 ePub ahead of publication (2014/04/22:1–2).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee SM. Stanford app helps improve neighborhoods. San Francisco: San Francisco Chronicle; 2013.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Newby K. Street smarts: using citizen scientists to fight for healthier neighborhoods. Stanf Med. Summer, 2013;30(2):18–21 and 44–45.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Salud America. Latino youth & seniors use Stanford walkability app to improve street conditions as part of ‘Nuestra Voz’ study. 2014 [cited 2015 January 19 2015]. http://www.communitycommons.org/sapolicies/latino-youth-seniors-use-stanford-walkability-app-to-improve-street-conditions-as-part-of-nuestra-voz-study/.
  35. 35.
    Carlson J, Sallis J, Conway T, Saelens B, Frank L, Kerr J, et al. Interactions between psychosocial and built environment factors in explaining older adults’ physical activity. Prev Med. 2012;54(1):68–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Golden SD, Earp JA. Social ecological approaches to individuals and their contexts: twenty years of health education & behavior health promotion interventions. Health Educ Behav. 2012;39(3):364–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mahmood A, Chaudhury H, Michael YL, Campo M, Hay K, Sarte A. A photovoice documentation of the role of neighborhood physical and social environments in older adults’ physical activity in two metropolitan areas in North America. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(8):1180–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hannay J, Dudley R, Milan S, Leibovitz P. Combining photovoice and focus groups: engaging Latnia teens in community assessment. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(3s3):s215–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Catalani C, Minkler M. Photovoice: a review of the literature in health and public health. Health Educ Behav. 2010;37(3):424–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang C, Burris MA. Empowerment through photo novella: portraits of participation. Health Educ Q. 1994;21(2):171–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hergenrather KC, Rhodes SD, Cowan CA, Bardhoshi G, Pula S. Photovoice as community-based participatory research: a qualitative review. Am J Health Behav. 2009;33(6):686–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ding D, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Lee S, Rosenberg DE. Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth a review. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(4):442–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Franco MR, Tong A, Howard K, Sherrington C, Ferreira PH, Pinto RZ, et al. Older people’s perspectives on participation in physical activity: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative literature. Br J Sports Med. 2015:1–9.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lovasi GS, Hutson MA, Guerra M, Neckerman KM. Built environments and obesity in disadvantaged populations. Epidemiol Rev. 2009;31:7–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Michael Y, Beard T, Choi D, Farquhar S, Carlson N. Measuring the influence of built neighborhood environments on walking in older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2006;14(3):302–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ding D, Gebel K. Built environment, physical activity, and obesity: What have we learned from reviewing the literature? Health Place. 2012;18(1):100–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Meisel ZF, Karlawish J. Narrative vs evidence-based medicine—and, not or. JAMA. 2011;306(18):2022–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Heart T, Kalderon E. Older adults: Are they ready to adopt health-related ICT? Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(11):e209–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Demiris G, Rantz MJ, Aud MA, Marek KD, Tyrer HW, Skubic M, et al. Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: a pilot study. Inform Health Soc Care. 2004;29(2):87–94.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Selwyn N, Gorard S, Furlong J, Madden L. Older adults’ use of information and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing Soc. 2003;23(05):561–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kutner M, Greenberg E, Baer J. A first look at the literacy of America’s adults in the 21st century. Washington: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics; 2005.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brown G, Marshall M, Bower P, Woodham A, Waheed W. Barriers to recruiting ethnic minorities to mental health research: a systematic review. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2014;23(1):36–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ejiogu N, Norbeck JH, Mason MA, Cromwell BC, Zonderman AB, Evans MK. Recruitment and retention strategies for minority or poor clinical research participants: lessons from the healthy aging in neighborhoods of diversity across the life span study. The Gerontologist. 2011;51(suppl 1):S33–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Israel BA, Krieger J, Vlahov D, Ciske S, Foley M, Fortin P, et al. Challenges and facilitating factors in sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: lessons learned from the Detroit, New York City and Seattle Urban Research Centers. J Urban Health. 2006;83(6):1022–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Seguin RA, Morgan EH, Connor LM, Garner JA, King AC, Sheats JL, et al. Rural food and physical activity assessment using a novel e-tablet-based application: findings and opportunities to catalyze change. Prev Chronic Dis. In press.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sheats J, Winter S, Padilla-Romero P, King A. FEAST (Food Environment Assessment using the Stanford Tool): development of a mobile application to crowd-source resident interactions with the food environment. Ann Behav Med. 2014;47(S1):s264.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Buman M, Bertmann F, Hekler E, Winter S, Sheats J, King A, et al. A qualitative study of shopper experiences at an urban farmers’ market using the Stanford Healthy Neighborhood Discovery Tool. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(6):994–1000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Moran M, Werner P, Doron I, Benvenisti Y, HaGani N, King AC, et al. Health promoting environments for older adults: Identifying environmental facilitators and barriers for walking among older adults in the city of Haifa. In: The annual conference of the Israeli geographical association. The University of Haifa, Israel; 2015.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Goldman Rosas L, Buman M, Castro C, Winter S, Salvo D, Sheats J, et al. Harnessing the capacity of citizen science to promote active living in California and Mexico. Place Migration and Health, Bellagio, Italy; 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra J. Winter
    • 1
  • Lisa Goldman Rosas
    • 1
    • 6
  • Priscilla Padilla Romero
    • 2
  • Jylana L. Sheats
    • 1
  • Matthew P. Buman
    • 3
  • Cathleen Baker
    • 4
  • Abby C. King
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Stanford Prevention Research CenterStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Fair Oaks Health CenterSan Mateo Medical CenterSan MateoUSA
  3. 3.School of Nutrition and Health PromotionArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  4. 4.Health Policy and PlanningSan Mateo County Health SystemSan MateoUSA
  5. 5.Department of Health Research and PolicyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  6. 6.Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research InstitutePalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations