Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33334334›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Perception survey of crisis and emergency risk communication in an acute hospital in the management of COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore.

Lai Meng Ow Yong, Xiaohui Xin, Jennifer Mei Ling Wee, Ruban Poopalalingam, Kenneth Yung Chiang Kwek, Julian Thumboo

Abstract readEvaluation Study
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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Global Healthcare Needs Related to COVID-19: An Evidence Map of the First Year of the Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Current Safety Regulation for Radiation Emergency Medicine in Korea.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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.

Lai Meng Ow YongMedical Social Services, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, 169608, Singapore. ow.yong.lai.meng@sgh.com.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4035-5848
Xiaohui XinHealth Services Research Unit, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, 169608, Singapore.
Jennifer Mei Ling WeeCommunications, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, 169608, Singapore.
Ruban PoopalalingamMedical Board, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, 169608, Singapore.
Kenneth Yung Chiang KwekChief Executive Office, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, 169608, Singapore.
Julian ThumbooHealth Services Research Unit, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, 169608, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency risk communication is a critical component in emergency planning and response. It has been recognised as significant for planning for and responding to public health emergencies. While there is a growing body of guidelines and frameworks on emergency risk communication, it remains a relatively new field. There has also been limited attention on how emergency risk communication is being performed in public health organisations, such as acute hospitals, and what the associated challenges are. This article seeks to examine the perception of crisis and emergency risk communication in an acute hospital in response to COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore and to identify its associated enablers and barriers.

methodsA 13-item Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) Survey, based on the US Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) CERC framework, was developed and administered to hospital staff during February 24-28, 2020. The survey also included an open-ended question to solicit feedback on areas of CERC in need of improvement. Chi-square test was used for analysis of survey data. Thematic analysis was performed on qualitative feedback.

resultsOf the 1154 participants who responded to the survey, most (94.1%) reported that regular hospital updates on COVID-19 were understandable and actionable. Many (92.5%) stated that accurate, concise and timely information helped to keep them safe. A majority (92.3%) of them were clear about the hospital's response to the COVID-19 situation, and 79.4% of the respondents reported that the hospital had been able to understand their challenges and address their concerns. Sociodemographic characteristics, such as occupation, age, marital status, work experience, gender, and staff's primary work location influenced the responses to hospital CERC. Local leaders within the hospital would need support to better communicate and translate hospital updates in response to COVID-19 to actionable plans for their staff. Better communication in executing resource utilization plans, expressing more empathy and care for their staff, and enhancing communication channels, such as through the use of secure text messaging rather than emails would be important.

conclusionCERC is relevant and important in the hospital setting to managing COVID-19 and should be considered concurrently with hospital emergency response domains.

Indexed as

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Communicable Disease ControlCOVID-19Emergency Medical Service Communication SystemsEmergency Service, HospitalEmergency TreatmentHumansInformation DisseminationPandemicsSingaporeUnited StatesCOVID-19Emergency risk communicationPublic health crisesRisk communication

Identifiers

PMID33334334
PMCPMC7745758

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.