ArticleWestern Pacific surveillance and response journal : WPSAR
Culturally and linguistically diverse voices and views in COVID-19 pandemic plans and policies.
Article in Western Pacific surveillance and response journal : WPSAR. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 pandemic perceived impacts on the Australian general population, a national survey exploring the role of socio-demographic and psychological factors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- National COVID-19 preparedness and response plans: a global review from the perspective of services for maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and older people.BMJ global health · 2024Review
- Article
- Communication and engagement of community members from ethnic minorities during COVID-19: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This paper presents a rapid assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic plans and explores the representation of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities in such plans. Four levels of pandemic plans were reviewed: regional, state, national and international. Methods: Discussions with representatives from four CALD communities informed the development of search and selection criteria for the COVID-19 plans, which were gathered and assessed using a CALD lens. Six COVID-19 pandemic plans that met the inclusion criteria were critically assessed. Results: The reviewed plans did not report any CALD community voices, views or consultations with community groups in the development phase, nor did they acknowledge the diversity of CALD populations. A few plans noted the vulnerability of CALD communities, but none discussed the challenges CALD communities face in accessing health information or health services during the pandemic, or other structural barriers (social determinants of health). Discussion: Our analysis revealed major gaps in all pandemic plans in terms of engaging with immigrant or CALD communities. Policies and plans that address and consider the complex needs and challenges of CALD communities are essential. Collaboration between public health services, multicultural services and policy-makers is vital for the inclusion of this higher-risk population.
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.