Table 3. Entities identified in the theory of change.

1. Impact
1.1	Primary: greater co-production of research between researchers and members of the public.
1.2	Secondary: citizen scientist capacity building.
2. Outcomes
2.1	Greater co-production of research objectives and pathways between the researcher and the public.
2.2	Greater embedment of citizen mental health science into funder processes (eg, the creation of specific funding calls for citizen mental health science proposals).
2.3	Greater clarity on the boundaries between citizen science and other participatory approaches (eg, so that there is no loss of impact due to conceptual confusion between these).
2.4	Increased knowledge around effective frameworks to enable mass public participation (such as designs for projects that can be replicated and reused).
2.5	Greater availability of technology platforms enabling safe and accessible engagement with citizen mental health science projects.
3. Indicators
3.1	General recruitment and retention of citizen scientists
3.2	Recruitment of citizen scientists with personal experience relevant to mental health.
3.3	Number of projects delivered through a safe and accessible citizen mental health science platform.
3.4	Amount of contribution made to mental health policy.
3.5	Degree of influence over research funding agencies, quality of engagement with agencies that can translate project output to practice.
3.6	Number of open access documents and resources coproduced with the citizen scientist and number and quality of feedback conversations between researcher and citizen scientist about the project and future work.
4. Assumptions
4.1 Population level
4.1.1	Large numbers of people are willing to participate in mental health citizen science.
4.1.2	Stakeholders with relevant characteristics are willing to buy into the concept of citizen mental health science.
4.1.3	The distinctiveness of stakeholder contributions could be understood by projects.
4.1.4	Stakeholders could perceive potential benefits from citizen science projects.
4.2 Community level
4.2.1	Relevant communities will trust researchers to engage with them.
4.2.2	Researchers are willing to actively engage with and be sensitive to community needs.
4.3 Policy level
4.3.1	Mental health citizen science activities and knowledge generated are accepted as credible by stakeholders engaged in policy development work.
4.3.2	The knowledge generated by citizen mental health science influences mental health policy and systems, including enabling funding agencies to invest in citizen mental health science projects.
5. Preconditions (all projects)
5.1	Transparency and openness on the part of researchers.
5 Preconditions (relevant to specific types of projects).
5.2	Inclusive use of terminology.
5.3	Depth of engagement with non-users of mental health services.
5.4	Inclusive language and accessible technology.
6. Outcome activities
6.1	Communication strategy for engagement.
6.2	Partnering with different mental health organisations.
6.3	Development of a community network of practice.
6.4	Design or leverage of existing citizen science infrastructure.