ArticleBMC public health2023
A text-mining study on emotional cognition, understanding, and preventative behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends of fear and anger on YouTube during the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in South Korea.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to look at emotions perceived about the attributes, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases related to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) that were widespread across the world and identify their relevance to knowledge about infectious diseases and preventative behaviors.
methodsTexts to measure emotional cognition were selected through a pre-test, and 282 people were chosen as participants based on the survey conducted for 20 days from August 19 to August 29, 2020, created with Google Forms. IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 was used for the primary analysis, and the SNA package in R (version 4.0.2) was utilized to conduct the network analysis.
resultsIt was found that universal negative emotions such as feeling "anxious" (65.5%), "afraid" (46.1%), and "scared" (32.7%) commonly appeared among most people. Also, they were found to be feeling both positive ("caring" [42.3%] and "strict" [28.2%]) and negative ("frustrating" [39.1%] and "isolated" [31.0%]) emotions about efforts to prevent and curb the spread of COVID-19. In terms of emotional cognition for the diagnosis and treatment of such diseases, "reliable" (43.3%) took the biggest ratio among the replies. The level of understanding about infectious diseases showed differences in emotional cognition, thereby affecting people's emotions. However, no differences were found in the practice of preventative behaviors.
conclusionsEmotions associated with cognition in the context of pandemic infectious diseases have been found to be mixed. Furthermore, it can be seen that feelings vary depending on the degree of understanding of the infectious disease.
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.