Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35186870›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health

Public Confidence in COVID-19 Prevention and Response in Bangladesh.

Edris Alam, Kazi Abdur Rahman, Al-Ekram Elahee Hridoy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Edris AlamFaculty of Resilience, Rabdan Academy, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Kazi Abdur RahmanThe Government of the People's Republic Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Al-Ekram Elahee HridoyDepartment of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Chittagong, Chittagong, Bangladesh.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community confidence in institutional approaches to emergency management directs how they cooperate and comply with public policy responses. In the context of emerging COVID-19 pandemic risk management, this study aims to assess public confidence in the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) and private sector entities for the activities undertaken during preparedness, prevention, and response phases. A survey was conducted with 307 respondents who willingly took part in the study. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess the internal reliability and the Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to estimate the mean score difference between the observations. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied in the study. The findings suggest that the participants were highly positive about the GoB efforts to organize and provide PPE for doctors in time as a safeguard against COVID-19 and coordination and informed decision making in relation to facing COVID-19. Overall, the participants showed a lower-level confidence in the preparedness and response measures taken by authorities in Bangladesh. The results explored how the GoB failed to reach the public satisfaction level regarding provision of food and financial support to low income and middle income people. A lack of collaboration and coordination among different inter-GoB and private sectors makes mitigation and recovery process difficult. This research provides a set of policy recommendations for future public health emergency management based on the participants' concerns and suggestions, and a review of consequences of policy responses in the early stage.

Indexed as

COVID-19BangladeshHumansPandemicsReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2BangladeshconfidenceCOVID-19preparednessresponserisk management

Identifiers

PMID35186870
PMCPMC8850390

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.