Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33287780›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Information uncertainty: a correlate for acute stress disorder during the COVID-19 outbreak in China.

Danhua Lin, Daniela B Friedman, Shan Qiao, Cheuk Chi Tam, Xiaoyan Li, Xiaoming Li

Open access · goldAbstract 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 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Danhua LinFaculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
Daniela B FriedmanDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Shan QiaoDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Cheuk Chi TamDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Xiaoyan LiFaculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
Xiaoming LiDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. xiaoming@mailbox.sc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5555-9034
University of South Carolina · USSouth Carolina Department of Education · USBeijing Normal University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividuals' stress in responding to the current COVID-19 pandemic may be exacerbated by information uncertainty driven by inconsistent, unverified, and conflicting news from various sources. The current study aims to test if information uncertainty during the COVID-19 outbreak was related to acute stress disorder (ASD) over and above other psychosocial stressors.

methodsAn anonymous online survey was conducted with 7800 college students throughout China from January 31 through February 11, 2020. Existing scales were modified to measure ASD and six potential stressors including information uncertainty during the COVID-19 outbreak. Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to assess the unique association of information uncertainty with ASD. To minimize the effect of large sample size and also to get a sense of whether the effects of information uncertainty were similar to people at the center of the epidemic, we repeated the hierarchical regression among 10% of the students who were randomly selected from the entire sample ("10% random sample"; n = 780) and 226 students from Hubei Province where the outbreak started.

resultsInformation uncertainty was highly prevalent among the respondents (64%). It was significantly associated with ASD beyond other key variables and potential stressors across three samples. In the hierarchical regression among the entire sample, demographic variables accounted for 9.4% of the variance in ASD. The other five stressors added 5.1% of the variance. The information uncertainty (β = .159; p < .001) explained an additional 2.1% of the variance. Likewise, the information uncertainty explained an additional 2.1 and 3.4% of the variance in ASD beyond all other variables among the 10% random sample (β = .165; p < .001) and the Hubei sample (β = .196; p < .01), respectively.

conclusionInformation uncertainty is a unique correlate of psychological stress during the COVID-19 outbreak. Reducing information uncertainty is essential not only for halting virus transmission but also for mitigating negative impacts of the pandemic on people's psychosocial wellbeing. Transparent, timely, and accurate communication can reduce public confusion, fear, and stress. Capacity building in governments, communities, and media outlets to prevent, reduce and manage information uncertainty should be a critical part of the response to an emerging global health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksUncertaintyAdolescentChinaConsumer Health InformationCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleRisk FactorsStress Disorders, Traumatic, AcuteStress, PsychologicalStudentsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAcute stress disorderChinaCOVID-19Information uncertainty

Identifiers

PMID33287780
PMCPMC7719728
OpenAlexW3111719388

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.