ArticlePloS one2022
Comparison of disaster information from various media in strengthening ecological communication during & after natural disasters.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the relationship between the level of panic and the various media disaster information modalities available during and after a natural disaster event. The method used was a Mix Methods Research Approach, which is a combination of qualitative descriptive and quantitative exploratory approaches. There were 150 respondents for the three research locations at Palu City, Sigi Regency and Donggala Regency. Respondents were selected by considering the event conditions experienced, physical damage to their house and their educational background. Media sources of disaster information analyzed were TV, internet, mobile phone (WA/SMS), radio, mosque/church, surau, community leaders and word of mouth. The data used was Likert scale analyses for perception tested with Rank Spearman Correlation. The results showed that the most significant panic level (α<0.01) was when the internet was not working, cellphones could not be used, and radio broadcasts could not be received. The most effective sources of disaster information in promoting a resilience attitude were guidance and advice from community leaders and ecological communication that was built from word of mouth. The exposure to natural disasters was shown to unite peoples' hearts in friendship. despite some did not communicate with each other before the disaster, some were even hostile. As many as 78.6% of respondents admitted that the affection between them as victims actually appeared when natural disasters destroyed the joints of their lives, even amongst those who did not communicate with each other, or were even hostile, before the disaster. Out of ecological communication, a "strong hug due to natural disasters" was born.
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.