ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Appraising and Handling COVID-19 Information: A Qualitative Study.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trust and distrust in low-income Michigan residents during the early COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- "It Bothered Me": The Mental Burden of COVID-19 Media Reports on Community-Dwelling Elderly People.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Barriers and facilitators to providing home-based care in a pandemic: policy and practice implications.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Perspectives on Mass Media and Governmental Measures during the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic in a Romanian Sample of Healthcare Practitioners.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe coronavirus pandemic brought vast quantities of new information to the public for rapid consumption. This study explored how people most impacted by the pandemic have judged and perceived the quality of information regarding COVID-19 and regulated the information flow.
methodsThis was a qualitative study of semi-structured interviews developed as a pragmatic study targeting several groups most impacted by the pandemic. Participants were identified through convenience, purposive, and snowball sampling methods. They were interviewed by phone or video conference.
resultsTwenty-five participants were interviewed between 6 April 2020 and 1 May 2020. In terms of verifying information and judging its quality, people judged information by the source. People compared information across sources and attempted to verify the quality. Most felt self-assured about their capacity to judge information. Regarding the quality of information, many participants felt the information was skewed or inaccurate. Contradictory information was confusing, especially with a strong suspicion of ulterior motives of information sources impacting trust in the provided information. Yet, some recognized the iterative process of healthcare-related information. In terms of regulating information flow, many participants perceived flooding with information. To counter information overload, some became selective with types of information input. Many developed the habit of taking breaks periodically.
conclusionImproving risk communication in a pandemic is of paramount importance. Organizations working in public health must develop ways to regulate information flow in collaboration with trusted community partners. Individuals also must develop strategies to improve information management.
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.