Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23185444›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Longitudinal investigation of public trust in institutions relative to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Switzerland.

Adrian Bangerter, Franciska Krings, Audrey Mouton, Ingrid Gilles, Eva G T Green, Alain Clémence

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Trust in COVID-19 public health information.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Psychosocial Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccination Intention Among White, Black, and Hispanic Adults in the US.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Adrian BangerterInstitute of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland. adrian.bangerter@unine.ch
Franciska Krings
Audrey Mouton
Ingrid Gilles
Eva G T Green
Alain Clémence

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 2009 H1N1 pandemic left a legacy of mistrust in the public relative to how outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases are managed. To prepare for future outbreaks, it is crucial to explore the phenomenon of public trust in the institutions responsible for managing disease outbreaks. We investigated the evolution of public trust in institutions during and after the 2009 pandemic in Switzerland. We also explored respondents' perceptions of the prevention campaign and the roles of the government and media. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsA two-wave longitudinal survey was mailed to 2,400 members of the Swiss public. Wave 1 was in Spring 2009. Wave 2 was in Spring 2010. Six hundred and two participants responded in both waves. Participants indicated moderate to high levels of trust in medical organizations, the WHO, the Swiss government, the pharmaceutical industry, and the EU. On the other hand, trust in the media was low. Moreover, trust in almost all institutions decreased over time. Participants were satisfied with the amount of information received and indicated having followed official recommendations, but widespread concerns about the vaccine were evident. A large majority of participants agreed the vaccine might have unknown or undesirable side effects. Perceptions of the government's and the media's role in handling the outbreak were characterized by a substantial degree of skepticism and mistrust. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Results show clear patterns of skepticism and mistrust on the part of the public relative to various institutions and their actions. Results underscore the importance of systematically investigating trust of the public relative to epidemics. Moreover, studies investigating the evolution of the public's memories of the pandemic over the coming years may be important to understand reactions to future pandemics. A systematic research program on trust can inform public health communication campaigns, enabling tailored communication initiatives.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanPandemicsPublic OpinionTrustAttitude to HealthFemaleHumansInfluenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeLongitudinal StudiesMaleSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID23185444
PMCPMC3504102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.