Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36232075›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Profiles of Multi-Media Use for Risk Communication in the General Population.

Samuel Tomczyk, Maxi Rahn, Silke Schmidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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. Article
  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

3 authors.

Samuel TomczykDepartment Health and Prevention, Institute of Psychology, University of Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2846-5489
Maxi RahnDepartment Health and Prevention, Institute of Psychology, University of Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany.
Silke SchmidtDepartment Health and Prevention, Institute of Psychology, University of Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although disaster research has acknowledged the role of social media in crisis communication, the interplay of new (e.g., mobile apps) and traditional media (e.g., TV, radio) in public warnings has received less attention, particularly from the recipients' perspective. Therefore, we examined sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates of different types of media use (i.e., traditional, new, mixed) for receiving public warning messages in a population survey (N = 613, 63% female; Mage = 31.56 years). More than two-thirds (68%) reported mixed media use, with 20% relying on new media and 12% on traditional media. Traditional media users were older and reported lower levels of education, while new media users were significantly younger and reported lower trust toward traditional media (i.e., TV). Migrants were more likely to use new but not mixed media. In sum, most participants utilized a mixture of traditional and new media for warning purposes, which has implications for crisis communication. Though, vulnerable populations (e.g., older and less educated participants) mainly rely on traditional media, stressing the need for continued support. Thus, it is paramount to increasingly use mixed methods designs and concurrently examine multiple channels to reflect real-world warning practices and generate ecologically valid results.

Indexed as

DisastersSocial MediaCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMass MediaTrustcrisis communicationdisaster management cyclemulti-mediapublic warningrisk communication

Identifiers

PMID36232075
PMCPMC9564902

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.