Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32326919›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Progress in public health risk communication in China: lessons learned from SARS to H7N9.

Melinda Frost, Richun Li, Ronald Moolenaar, Qun'an Mao, Ruiqian Xie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Appraising and Handling COVID-19 Information: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Demand for Health Information on COVID-19 among Vietnamese.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Melinda FrostDivision of Global Health Protection, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. melinda.g.frost@gmail.com.
Richun LiDivision of Global Health Protection, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ronald MoolenaarDivision of Global Health Protection, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Qun'an MaoNational Health Commission, Beijing, China.
Ruiqian XieChinese Center for Health Education, Beijing, China.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USCenter for Global Health · USNational Health and Family Planning Commission · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing the SARS outbreak, the World Health Organization revised the International Health Regulations to include risk communication as one of the core capacity areas. In 2006, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Global Disease Detection [GDD] program began collaborating with China to enhance China's risk communication capacity to address gaps in the SARS communication response. This article describes tangible improvements in China's public health emergency risk communication capacity between the SARS and H7N9 outbreaks; documents U.S. CDC GDD cooperative technical assistance during 2006-2017; and shares lessons learnt to benefit other countries and contribute to enhance global health security.

methodA questionnaire based on the WHO Joint External Evaluation tool [Risk Communication section] was developed. A key communications official from the China National Health Commission [NHC] completed the questionnaire retrospectively to reflect China's capacity to manage communication response before, during and after the outbreaks of SARS in 2003, influenza H1N1 in 2009, and influenza H7N9 in 2013. A literature search was also conducted in English and Chinese to further substantiate the results of the questionnaire completed by NHC.

resultsChina demonstrated significantly improved risk communication capacities of pre-event, during event and post event responses to H7N9 when compared to the SARS response. China NHC improved its response through preparedness, availability of dedicated staff and resources for risk communication, internal clearance mechanisms, standard operating procedures with national response parties external to NHC, rumor management, communication with international agencies and consistent messaging with healthcare and private sectors. Correspondingly, the perceived level of trust that the public had in the NHC following outbreaks rose between the SARS and H7N9 response.

conclusionRisk communication capacities in China have increased during the ten years between the SARS outbreak of 2003 and the H7N9 outbreak of 2013. Long-term risk communication capacity building efforts in bilateral collaborations are uncommon. The U.S. CDC GDD project was one of the first such collaborations worldwide. The lessons learned from this project may benefit lower and middle-income countries as they build their national emergency risk communication capacity.

Indexed as

CommunicationCapacity BuildingCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.ChinaDisease NotificationDisease OutbreaksGlobal HealthHumansInfluenza A Virus, H7N9 SubtypePublic HealthRetrospective StudiesSevere Acute Respiratory SyndromeUnited StatesWorld Health OrganizationChinaGlobal disease detectionGlobal health securityH7N9International health regulationsRisk communicationsSARS

Identifiers

PMID32326919
PMCPMC6696672
OpenAlexW2944189132

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.