Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36849938›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.

Julia Lühnen, Thomas Frese, Wilfried Mau, Gabriele Meyer, Rafael Mikolajczyk, Matthias Richter, Jan Schildmann, Matthias C Braunisch, Falk Fichtner, Christopher Holzmann-Littig and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

20 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Julia LühnenMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Magdeburgerstraße 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany. julia.luehnen@medizin.uni-halle.de.
Thomas FreseMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Wilfried MauMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Gabriele MeyerMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Magdeburgerstraße 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Rafael MikolajczykMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences; Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Matthias RichterMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences; Institute of Medical Sociology, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Jan SchildmannMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Matthias C BraunischTechnical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Nephrology, Munich, Germany.
Falk FichtnerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Leipzig, Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Christopher Holzmann-LittigTechnical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Nephrology, Munich, Germany.
Peter KrankeDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Maria PoppDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Christian SchaafTechnical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Nephrology, Munich, Germany.
Christoph SchmadererTechnical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Nephrology, Munich, Germany.
Christian SeeberDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Leipzig, Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Anne WernerDepartment of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, University Medical Center Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Marjo Wijnen-MeijerTechnical University of Munich, School of Medicine, TUM Medical Education Center, Munich, Germany.
Joerg J MeerpohlCochrane Germany Foundation, Cochrane Germany, Freiburg, Germany.
Anke SteckelbergMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Magdeburgerstraße 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.
AP6 CEOsys
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DETUM Klinikum · DELeipzig University · DELuther University · KRUniversity of Würzburg · DETechnical University of Munich · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRight from the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic the general public faced the challenge to find reliable and understandable information in the overwhelming flood of information. To enhance informed decision-making, evidence-based information should be provided. Aim was to explore the general public's information needs and preferences on COVID-19 as well as the barriers to accessing evidence-based information.

methodsWe performed a cross-sectional study. Nine hundred twenty-seven panel members were invited to an online survey (12/2020-02/2021). The HeReCa-online-panel is installed at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg to assess regularly the general public's view on health issues in five regions in Germany. The survey was set up in LimeSurvey, with nine items, multiple-choice and open-ended questions that allowed to gather qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and a content analysis was carried out to categorise the qualitative data.

resultsSix hundred thirty-six panel members provided data; mean age 52 years, 56.2% female, and 64.9% with higher education qualifications. Asked about relevant topics related to COVID-19, most participants selected vaccination (63.8%), infection control (52%), and long-term effects (47.8%). The following 11 categories were derived from the qualitative analysis representing the topics of interest: vaccination, infection control, long-term effects, therapies, test methods, mental health, symptoms, structures for pandemic control, infrastructure in health care, research. Participants preferred traditional media (TV 70.6%; radio 58.5%; newspaper 32.7%) to social media, but also used the internet as sources of information, becoming aware of new information on websites (28.5%) or via email/newsletter (20.1%). The knowledge question (Which European country is most affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic?) was correctly answered by 7.5% of participants. The Robert Koch Institute (93.7%) and the World Health Organization (78%) were well known, while other organisations providing health information were rarely known (< 10%). Barriers to accessing trustworthy information were lack of time (30.7%), little experience (23.1%), uncertainty about how to get access (22.2%), complexity and difficulties in understanding (23.9%), and a lack of target group orientation (15,3%).

conclusionsThere are extensive information needs regarding various aspects on COVID-19 among the general population. In addition, target-specific dissemination strategies are still needed to reach different groups.

Indexed as

COVID-19Academies and InstitutesAwarenessCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2Consumer health informationInformation disseminationInformation seeking behaviourNeeds assessmentPandemic

Identifiers

PMID36849938
PMCPMC9969022
OpenAlexW4322217323

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.