The COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the need to partner with the community in pandemic preparedness and response in order to enable trust-building among stakeholders, which is key in pandemic management. Citizen science, defined here as a practice of public participation and collaboration in all aspects of scientific research to increase knowledge and build trust with governments and researchers, is a crucial approach to promoting community engagement. By harnessing the potential of digitally enabled citizen science, one could translate data into accessible, comprehensible and actionable outputs at the population level. The application of citizen science in health has grown over the years, but most of these approaches remain at the level of participatory data collection. This narrative review examines citizen science approaches in participatory data generation, modelling and visualisation, and calls for truly participatory and co-creation approaches across all domains of pandemic preparedness and response. Further research is needed to identify approaches that optimally generate short-term and long-term value for communities participating in population health. Feasible, sustainable and contextualised citizen science approaches that meaningfully engage affected communities for the long-term will need to be inclusive of all populations and their cultures, comprehensive of all domains, digitally enabled and viewed as a key component to allow trust-building among the stakeholders. The impact of COVID-19 on people’s lives has created an opportune time to advance people’s agency in science, particularly in pandemic preparedness and response.

Due to the high burden of mental health issues among students at higher education institutions world-wide, animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) are being used to relieve student stress. The objective of this study was to systematically review of the effects of AAIs on the mental, physiological, and cognitive outcomes of higher education students. Randomized controlled trials using any unfamiliar animal as the sole intervention tool were included in this review. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Where possible, effect sizes (Hedges’ g) were pooled for individual outcomes using random-effects meta-analyses. Albatross plots were used to supplement the data synthesis. Of 2.494 identified studies, 35 were included. Almost all studies used dogs as the intervention animal. The quality of most included studies was rated as moderate. Studies showed an overall reduction of acute anxiety and stress. For other mental outcomes, studies showed smaller, but nonetheless beneficial effects. Studies showed no clear effect on physiological or cognitive outcomes. Strong methodological heterogeneity between studies limited the ability to draw clear conclusions.

BackgroundDue to the high burden of mental health issues among students at higher education institutions world-wide, animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) are being increasingly used to relieve student stress. The objective of this study was to systematically review of the effects of AAIs on the mental and cognitive health outcomes of higher education students.MethodsRandomized controlled trials using any unfamiliar animal as the sole intervention tool were included in the systematic review. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Where possible, effect sizes (Hedges’ g) were pooled for individual outcomes using random-effects meta-analyses. Albatross plots were used to supplement the data synthesis.ResultsOf 2.401 identified studies, 35 were included. Almost all studies used dogs as the intervention animal. The quality of most included studies was rated as moderate. Studies showed an overall reduction of acute anxiety (g= -0.57 (95%CI -1.45;0.31)) and stress. For other mental outcomes, studies showed an overall small reduction of negative affect (g= -0.47 (95%CI -1.46;0.52)), chronic stress (g= -0.23 (95%CI -0.57;0.11)) and depression, as well as small increases in arousal, happiness and positive affect (g= 0.06 (95%CI -0.78;0.90)). Studies showed no effect on heart rate and heart rate variability, a small reduction in salivary cortisol and mixed effects on blood pressure. No effect on cognitive outcomes was found.ConclusionOverall, evidence suggests that AAIs are effective at improving mental, but not physiological or cognitive outcomes of students. Strong methodological heterogeneity between studies limited the ability to draw clear conclusions.