Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35798515›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

'Communication, that is the key': a qualitative investigation of how essential workers with COVID-19 responded to public health information.

Mark Roe, Conor Buggy, Carolyn Ingram, Mary Codd, Claire Buckley, Mary Archibald, Natalie Rachwal, Vicky Downey, Yanbing Chen, Penpatra Sripaiboonkij and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Mark RoeSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland mark.roe@ucd.ie.ORCID 0000-0001-6615-2283
Conor BuggySchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Carolyn IngramSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Mary CoddSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Claire BuckleyHealth Service Executive Contact Management Programme, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland.
Mary ArchibaldSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Natalie RachwalSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Vicky DowneySchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Yanbing ChenSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Penpatra SripaiboonkijSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Anne DrummondSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Elizabeth AlvarezHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2333-0144
Carla PerrottaSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sport Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-5986-4581

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo understand how essential workers with confirmed infections responded to information on COVID-19.

designQualitative analysis of semistructured interviews conducted in collaboration with the national contact tracing management programme in Ireland.

settingSemistructured interviews conducted via telephone and Zoom Meetings.

participants18 people in Ireland with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections using real-time PCR testing of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs. All individuals were identified as part of workplace outbreaks defined as ≥2 individuals with epidemiologically linked infections.

resultsA total of four high-order themes were identified: (1) accessing essential information early, (2) responses to emerging 'infodemic', (3) barriers to ongoing engagement and (4) communication strategies. Thirteen lower order or subthemes were identified and agreed on by the researchers.

conclusionsOur findings provide insights into how people infected with COVID-19 sought and processed related health information throughout the pandemic. We describe strategies used to navigate excessive and incomplete information and how perceptions of information providers evolve overtime. These results can inform future communication strategies on COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19CommunicationHumansPandemicsPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2COVID-19health policypublic health

Identifiers

PMID35798515
PMCPMC9263375

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.