Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30340985›Full record

SynthesisThe lancet. Psychiatry2019

How to inform the public about protective actions in a nuclear or radiological incident: a systematic review.

Louis Gauntlett, Richard Amlôt, G James Rubin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The lancet. Psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Bibliometric Analysis on Global Psychological and Behavioral Research Landscape on COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Louis GauntlettDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK; Emergency Response Department Science & Technology, Public Health England, Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK.
Richard AmlôtEmergency Response Department Science & Technology, Public Health England, Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK.
G James RubinDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: gideon.rubin@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studying how the public behaves after a nuclear emergency will help to assess overall morbidity and mortality. Pre-event education might help to shape behaviour, but how best to engage people with emergency communications for low likelihood, high-impact events is unknown. We did a systematic review to identify factors that predict behaviour in preparation for a nuclear incident, factors that predict behaviour in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear incident, and preferences among members of the public for information designed to educate them about which actions to take in the event of a nuclear incident. In general preparedness, behaviour was predicted by factors including perceived coping effectiveness and having children, among others, but absence of preparedness was attributed to fatalistic attitudes. Importantly, for pre-incident communications to be accepted and recommendations adhered to, the source had to be trusted and perceived to be credible. However, it is notable that family needs, such as picking up children from school, were a stronger predictor of behaviour in a nuclear emergency than communicated directives from authorities. If pre-incident education about nuclear incidents is to be used, several factors-including the source and method of communication, the content, and format of messaging-might increase public engagement with messages and promote the uptake of protective behaviours in a radiation event.

Indexed as

Radioactive Hazard ReleaseCivil DefenseDisaster PlanningHealth CommunicationHumansInformation DisseminationRadiation ProtectionRisk AssessmentSafety ManagementTerrorism

Identifiers

PMID30340985
PMCPMC10019556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.