Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33046052›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Risk perception during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone.

Maike Winters, Mohamed F Jalloh, Paul Sengeh, Mohammad B Jalloh, Zangin Zeebari, Helena Nordenstedt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 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. Article
  10. Article
  11. Contextual wellness in the age of COVID-19: Managing disproportionate pandemic anxiety and stress in Australia, Singapore and other nations achieving disease control success.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Maike WintersDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 17717, Stockholm, Sweden. Maike.winters@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0915-6506
Mohamed F JallohDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 17717, Stockholm, Sweden.
Paul SengehFOCUS1000, Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Mohammad B JallohFOCUS1000, Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Zangin ZeebariJönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden.
Helena NordenstedtDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 17717, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Vetenskapsrådet dnr 2018/1276-31
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerceived susceptibility to a disease threat (risk perception) can influence protective behaviour. This study aims to determine how exposure to information sources, knowledge and behaviours potentially influenced risk perceptions during the 2014-2015 Ebola Virus Disease outbreak in Sierra Leone.

methodsThe study is based on three cross-sectional, national surveys (August 2014, n = 1413; October 2014, n = 2086; December 2014, n = 3540) that measured Ebola-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices in Sierra Leone. Data were pooled and composite variables were created for knowledge, misconceptions and three Ebola-specific behaviours. Risk perception was measured using a Likert-item and dichotomised into 'no risk perception' and 'some risk perception'. Exposure to five information sources was dichotomised into a binary variable for exposed and unexposed. Multilevel logistic regression models were fitted to examine various associations.

resultsExposure to new media (e.g. internet) and community-level information sources (e.g. religious leaders) were positively associated with expressing risk perception. Ebola-specific knowledge and hand washing were positively associated with expressing risk perception (Adjusted OR [AOR] 1.4, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.2-1.8 and AOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.7 respectively), whereas misconceptions and avoiding burials were negatively associated with risk perception, (AOR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8 and AOR 0.8, 95% CI 06-1.0, respectively).

conclusionsOur results illustrate the complexity of how individuals perceived their Ebola acquisition risk based on the way they received information, what they knew about Ebola, and actions they took to protect themselves. Community-level information sources may help to align the public's perceived risk with their actual epidemiological risk. As part of global health security efforts, increased investments are needed for community-level engagements that allow for two-way communication during health emergencies.

Indexed as

Hemorrhagic Fever, EbolaRiskAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDisease OutbreaksFemaleHumansMalePerceptionSierra LeoneEbolaEpidemicEpidemiologyGlobal healthInfectious diseasesRisk perception

Identifiers

PMID33046052
PMCPMC7549333

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.