Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30379900›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Integrating emergency risk communication (ERC) into the public health system response: Systematic review of literature to aid formulation of the 2017 WHO Guideline for ERC policy and practice.

Ayan Jha, Leesa Lin, Sarah Massin Short, Giorgia Argentini, Gaya Gamhewage, Elena Savoia

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: A System Review of Hospital Preparedness for Bioterrorism Events.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Ayan JhaEmergency Preparedness, Research, Evaluation & Practice (EPREP) program, Division of Policy Translation & Leadership Development, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9185-2249
Leesa LinEmergency Preparedness, Research, Evaluation & Practice (EPREP) program, Division of Policy Translation & Leadership Development, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Sarah Massin ShortEmergency Preparedness, Research, Evaluation & Practice (EPREP) program, Division of Policy Translation & Leadership Development, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Giorgia ArgentiniEmergency Preparedness, Research, Evaluation & Practice (EPREP) program, Division of Policy Translation & Leadership Development, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Gaya GamhewageInterventions and Guidance, Infectious Hazard Management, Health Emergencies Programme, World Health Organization, Genève, Switzerland.
Elena SavoiaEmergency Preparedness, Research, Evaluation & Practice (EPREP) program, Division of Policy Translation & Leadership Development, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a systematic review of literature to facilitate evidence syntheses for the development of emergency risk communication (ERC) guidelines for its member states. The goal of this review was to integrate ERC best practices into governmental and non-governmental health systems for all emergencies of public health concern, by addressing three questions: (1) to identify best practices for the integration of ERC into national and international public health preparedness; (2) to identify mechanisms to establish effective intra-agency, inter-agency, and/or cross-jurisdictional information sharing; and (3) to identify methods to coordinate risk communication activities between responding agencies across organizations and levels of response. The review covered scientific and grey literature publications between January 2003 and February 2016, and searches were conducted in 17 English language electronic libraries besides Chinese, Portuguese and Spanish language databases. A mixed deductive-inductive process was used to synthesize findings across studies through identifying thematic areas. While 8,215 articles were initially retrieved, after a sequential screening process, the final evidence syntheses comprised of 21 articles for question (1) and 24 for questions (2) and (3) combined (due to overlap of themes). The confidence in findings was assessed by the Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual) tool. PRISMA guidelines were followed to the extent possible given the limitations inherent to a review largely based on qualitative studies. The identified literature was very context-specific and referred to mechanisms, practices from the field, and recommendations that were derived from planning or response efforts implemented at the national or local levels in specific countries. Integration of ERC functions into public health emergency preparedness, planning and response activities was influenced by reforming components of the leadership structure when needed, modifying organizational factors, and nullifying restrictions (including amending laws/ regulations) that might have been an obstacle to the timely release of information. Exercises and trainings were recognized as effective strategies to identify the barriers and successes in this process of integration. Key elements to enhance information sharing and coordination across organizations included the creation of networks, task-forces and committees across disciplines, organizations and geographic areas. Engagement of local stakeholders was also important to guarantee the flow of information up and down the incident command system. On the whole, few empirical studies, especially from low- and middle-income countries, related to the WHO research questions, demonstrating the need for research in these areas. To facilitate an accurate identification of the gaps, the authors suggest integrating current findings with case studies across the WHO regions to better understand the specific evidence that is needed in practice across the multitude of ERC functions.

Indexed as

CommunicationPublic Health PracticeCivil DefenseEmergenciesHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID30379900
PMCPMC6209198

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.