Every three years, the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) conducts the National Profile of Local Health Departments (denoted as the “Profile study”) as a census of LHDs.¹⁴ For our survey, we constructed a sample consisting of a subset (n=600) of the 2,533 LHD representatives (i.e., local health officials, including health directors, officers, or administrators) who participated in NACCHO’s 2016 Profile study.¹⁵

We defined LHDs as an administrative or service unit of local or state government carrying some responsibility for the health of a jurisdiction smaller than the state. We used a stratified random sampling design to select the subset of 600 LHD representatives, with population size served as the basis for stratification. We used population size categories previously defined by NACCHO: <25,000; 25,000–49,999; 50,000–99,999; 100,000–249,999; 250,000–499,999; 500,000–999,999; and ≥1,000,000. This approach ensures inclusion of enough larger LHDs to facilitate meaningful generalizations. We determined the number of LHDs selected from each population stratum using a combination of two approaches: the probability proportional to number of LHDs in a stratum in the target population of LHDs, and an equal number of LHDs from each stratum. Since only a small number of LHDs in the U.S. serve large jurisdictions, we oversampled larger LHDs.

We performed data collection between January and August 2019. We sent our survey to the local health official for each LHD to be completed by either the official or a designated representative having the knowledge necessary to complete the survey. We instructed respondents to complete the survey on behalf of their LHD.

The survey was approved for fielding by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (OMB Control No: 0920–1236, exp. 06/30/2021). The study was reviewed and approved by the RAND Corporation Institutional Review Board. This activity was reviewed by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) policy.¹⁶ Participants viewed an electronic consent form prior to beginning the survey.

We developed and fielded two versions of our survey: a core questionnaire with 14 items that all participants received and a supplemental module with 36 additional items that a subset of participants completed. We included the following domains in the core questionnaire: LHD knowledge and attitudes regarding citizen science, readiness for engaging in citizen science, experience with citizen science, and barriers to engagement (see Appendices A and B for the core and supplemental questionnaires, respectively). Table 1 describes the constructs measured within each domain and associated questionnaire version(s). The supplemental module included additional questions on uses of citizen science data (use cases), determinants of activity success, perceived benefits, and perceived concerns about the use or value of citizen science. In total, 272 LHD representatives completed the core questionnaire (45% response rate). All 272 respondents that completed the core questionnaire received the supplemental questionnaire. Of the 272 respondents, 144 completed the supplemental module (53% response rate).

The survey instrument provided the following description of citizen science: “Citizen science is a broad term that covers many different types of activities. It has also been called ‘public participation in scientific research,’ ‘community science,’ and ‘participatory research.’ At its core, citizen science is the use of scientific methods by members of the public to perform research. Examples of citizen science could be community members providing data to the health department or a university for aggregation or community members independently collecting and analyzing data on a public health issue” (Emphasis in original).

We also differentiated between three citizen science models and provided respondents with the following descriptions that were adapted for a public health audience.¹

We conducted data analyses in R (version 3.5.1)¹⁷ using survey weights to account for differential non-response by population size served. We calculated weights by dividing the proportion of LHDs in a population category among the full sample population by the proportion of LHDs in a population category among all survey respondents. For questions included in the core questionnaire, we prepared descriptive statistics for each variable and corresponding ANOVA F-tests for the size of population served and degree of urbanization (i.e., metropolitan, rural, suburban). For the supplemental module, we provide an unweighted summary of responses to selected questions. We opted for an unweighted summary given the supplemental survey’s exploratory focus, smaller sample size, and wide variation in responses between questions. We used inductive thematic analysis to analyze open-ended questions for recurring themes.

The following results represent survey data provided by the 144 respondents who completed the supplemental citizen science survey module.

LHD respondents reported that information from citizen science activities was used to support a variety of actions aligned with traditional community engagement activities, including public communications and public education.² However, the unique contribution of citizen science is to enhance capacity to perform services such as surveillance, epidemiological investigations, and monitoring activities.

A wide variety of citizen science initiatives described in the peer-reviewed literature demonstrate this potential. Citizen science-enabled tick and mosquito collection programs have helped track and predict the distribution of particular species of disease-carrying vectors;^18,19 similar initiatives have tracked environmental hazards that would otherwise prove difficult to monitor, such as local noise pollution events.²⁰

Our results show LHDs have not generally pursued citizen science to support such technical activities. Based on answers to questions about trust and scientific credentials, LHDs appear to be less comfortable with citizen science compared to professional scientific activities. As indicated by respondents’ concerns, LHDs may be wary of using citizen science for data collection because of perceptions about quality issues. However, these concerns may be limited to certain forms of data collection, as many LHDs reported using citizen science to conduct community health or needs assessments. To mitigate these concerns, trainings in both technical (e.g., crowdsourcing) and research engagement (e.g., community-based research methods) may be beneficial, as noted by respondents. LHDs may consider developing procedures to rapidly validate data generated through community-led citizen science and/or procedures to clarify how data of varying quality could be appropriately used (e.g., less rigorous data could be used as an early indicator). Important determinants of success for citizen science research or data collection efforts included having the right partnerships in place, buy-in from organizational leaders, and mutual trust between partners.^11–13 Findings also highlight the importance of having knowledgeable and trained staff, as well as committed and capable leaders.

LHDs lack experience with and readiness for community-led citizen science in particular. As new technologies and social networking platforms enable greater public access to data collection tools, LHDs might increasingly find themselves on the receiving end of this form of knowledge exchange. Investing in staffing, partnership development, participatory research methods, and trainings on community-led data collection methods may help LHDs build capacity to engage with community-led citizen science in ways that strengthen community and health department relationships.

While respondents reported several challenges to pursuing citizen science, a substantial portion also described a variety of actual and potential uses and benefits of citizen science in public health activities, particularly related to emergency preparedness (e.g., collecting data on household preparedness and environmental quality; improving community understanding of public health risk communication messages). With the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbating public mistrust of government and science, it is critical for public health to pursue effective community engagement for the purpose of identifying and effectively addressing concerns of both communities at large and the underserved groups within them. Building trustworthy two-way relationships with communities may facilitate quality public participation in health department led citizen science, and increase health department awareness of community-led citizen science initiatives and opportunities for early collaboration.

To fulfill the potential of citizen science for both community engagement and data collection, LHDs can first engage in citizen science focused on community-facing benefits (e.g., community education). Once experience is gained, relationships are forged, and process mechanics become familiar, LHDs could begin developing capabilities to perform quality data collection through citizen science.

We note three main limitations of our study. First, our findings may be influenced by self-selection bias, as those who responded to the survey on behalf of their LHD may have been more interested in citizen science activities or have more to report than those that did not respond. Second, our findings may be influenced by response bias, as respondents representing LHDs may not have been familiar with all staff activities and knowledge, particularly if their LHD was less engaged. To address this, our survey questions included a “don’t know” response item. Finally, survey results related to rural LHDs should be interpreted with caution given the low number of respondents in this group and potential for under-representation. We note also that our survey was fielded before the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research could assess whether the pandemic influenced changes in attitudes and perceptions towards citizen science.

Citizen science is a growing phenomenon across public health, presenting opportunities and challenges for LHDs. Citizen science may be especially helpful as a mode of community engagement, which may help LHDs improve the relevance and impact of public health services. Our findings suggest LHDs have experience with citizen science, but lack of staff knowledge and resources may hinder ability to capitalize on the public health benefits. LHDs can consider building upon existing engagement activities, like public education, towards more data-intensive endeavors. Staff training in both the technical and research engagement aspects of citizen science may be key for building LHD capacity and improving readiness for all forms of citizen science.