Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34388211›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

The role of risk communication in public health interventions. An analysis of risk communication for a community quarantine in Germany to curb the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Juliane Scholz, Wibke Wetzker, Annika Licht, Rainer Heintzmann, André Scherag, Sebastian Weis, Mathias Pletz, Cornelia Betsch, Michael Bauer, Petra Dickmann and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. 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
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Communicating COVID-19 risk changes: Signalling with words, phrases, and messages.International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR · 2022
    Article
  14. [A new understanding of risk communication in public health emergencies].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022
    Review
  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

11 authors.

Juliane ScholzDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1746-5520
Wibke WetzkerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Annika LichtDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Rainer HeintzmannLeibniz Institute of Photonic Technology, Institute of Physical Chemistry and Abbe Center of Photonics, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
André ScheragInstitute of Medical Statistics, Computer and Data Sciences, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Sebastian WeisDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Mathias PletzInstitute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Cornelia BetschMedia and Communication Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Michael BauerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1521-3514
Petra DickmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3282-7614
CoNAN study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeparating ill or possibly infectious people from their healthy community is one of the core principles of non-pharmaceutical interventions. However, there is scarce evidence on how to successfully implement quarantine orders. We investigated a community quarantine for an entire village in Germany (Neustadt am Rennsteig, March 2020) with the aim of better understanding the successful implementation of quarantine measures.

methodsThis cross-sectional survey was conducted in Neustadt am Rennsteig six weeks after the end of a 14-day mandatory community quarantine. The sample size consisted of 562 adults (64% of the community), and the response rate was 295 adults, or 52% (33% of the community).

findingsNational television was reported as the most important channel of information. Contact with local authorities was very limited, and partners or spouses played a more important role in sharing information. Generally, the self-reported information level was judged to be good (211/289 [73.0%]). The majority of participants (212/289 [73.4%]) approved of the quarantine, and the reported compliance was 217/289 (75.1%). A self-reported higher level of concern as well as a higher level of information correlated positively with both a greater acceptance of quarantine and self-reported compliant behaviour.

interpretationThe community quarantine presented a rare opportunity to investigate a public health intervention for an entire community. In order to improve the implementation of public health interventions, public health risk communication activities should be intensified to increase both the information level (potentially leading to better compliance with community quarantine) and the communication level (to facilitate rapport and trust between public health authorities and their communities).

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedCommunity-Institutional RelationsCOVID-19FemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuarantineRural Population

Identifiers

PMID34388211
PMCPMC8362954

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.