ArticleBMC public health2021
Authorized, clear and timely communication of risk to guide public perception and action: lessons of COVID-19 from China.
Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping risk communication practices in public health emergencies: a scoping review and comparison with Italian regional pandemic plans.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Influencing factors for public risk perception of COVID-19 --perspective of the pandemic whole life cycle.International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR · 2022Article
- SMS-based digital health intervention in Rwanda's home-based care program for remote management of COVID-19 cases and contacts: A qualitative study of sustainability and scalability.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundsThis study examined the dynamic association between risk communication and the public's risk perception and action across the COVID-19 outbreak timeline in China.
methodsThis study collected publicly available information on COVID-19 released on official channels (e.g., government websites and official media) by the Parehub tool. Also, the study used the Zhongyun Big Data Platform to search public datasets about released COVID-19 information on Chinese social media, such as TikTok and Weibo. An online survey was conducted via WeChat to Chinese citizens using a snowball sampling method. The questionnaire assessed changes in participants' risk perception and action against COVID-19. The data analysis examined information content and release-time trajectories against the public's risk perception and actions over time.
resultsAltogether, the collected data includes 1477 pieces of authorized information and 297,000 short videos on COVID-19. Of 1362 participants recruited from 33 provinces and municipalities of China, 1311 respondents (25-60 years, 42% male) were valid for future analysis. The study indicated that 85.7% of participants mainly relied on official channels to obtain information. Alongside the outbreak's progress, there was a gradual rise in information quantity, publishing frequency, and content variation. Correspondingly, the public's risk perception that "take it seriously" rose from 13 to 80%, 87.1% of those who took "multiple actions" compared to 25.9% initially.
conclusionsOur findings indicated that insufficient information freely-accessible at the early stages of the outbreak might lead to the lack of risk awareness and the public's inadequate protective actions. Given the current global situation of COVID-19, the study highlights authorized, transparent, and timely two-way risk communication is vital to guide public perception and actions. Furthermore, our study provides risk communication recommendations and may contribute to developing full measures to address future crises.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.