Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36178941›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Key topics in pandemic health risk communication: A qualitative study of expert opinions and knowledge.

Siv Hilde Berg, Marie Therese Shortt, Jo Røislien, Daniel Adrian Lungu, Henriette Thune, Siri Wiig

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Siv Hilde BergFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Quality and Health Technology, Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0624-3727
Marie Therese ShorttFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Quality and Health Technology, Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Jo RøislienFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Quality and Health Technology, Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7168-2833
Daniel Adrian LunguFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Quality and Health Technology, Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8612-8384
Henriette ThuneFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Quality and Health Technology, Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Siri WiigFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Quality and Health Technology, Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
University of Stavanger · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScience communication can provide people with more accurate information on pandemic health risks by translating complex scientific topics into language that helps people make more informed choices on how to protect themselves and others. During pandemics, experts in medicine, science, public health, and communication are important sources of knowledge for science communication. This study uses the COVID-19 pandemic to explore these experts' opinions and knowledge of what to communicate to the public during a pandemic. The research question is: What are the key topics to communicate to the public about health risks during a pandemic?

methodWe purposively sampled 13 experts in medicine, science, public health, and communication for individual interviews, with a range of different types of knowledge of COVID-19 risk and communication at the national, regional and hospital levels in Norway. The interview transcripts were coded and analysed inductively in a qualitative thematic analysis.

resultsThe study's findings emphasise three central topics pertaining to communication about pandemic health risk during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway: 1) how the virus enters the human body and generates disease; 2) how to protect oneself and others from being infected; and 3) pandemic health risk for the individual and the society.

conclusionThe key topics emerging from the expert interviews relate to concepts originating from multiple disciplinary fields, and can inform frameworks for interprofessional communication about health risks during a pandemic. The study highlights the complexity of communicating pandemic messages, due to scientific uncertainty, fear of risk amplification, and heterogeneity in public health and scientific literacy. The study contributes with insight into the complex communication processes of pandemic health risk communication.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health CommunicationCommunicationHumansPandemicsPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID36178941
PMCPMC9524709
OpenAlexW4298087880

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.