Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36935705›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Innovate emergency governance mechanism of urban communities in response to major public health events: A qualitative study from multiple principals in Guangzhou, China.

Liting Zhou, Fei Ouyang

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. 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
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

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

2 authors.

Liting ZhouSchool of Urban Culture, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Fei OuyangSchool of Urban Culture, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the end of 2019, the sudden outbreak of COVID-19 has challenged the emergency governance systems of various countries. As the cornerstone of national governance, China's community emergency governance mainly adopts top-down organizational mobilization and rapid response, which is typical abnormal governance. In responding to major public health events, China's national system has developed certain advantages in some respects. However, the current pandemic is still serious in many places, and new mutant strains are constantly appearing. Some drawbacks of such system and mechanism are gradually emerging. In the process of preventing and controlling the pandemic, China's urban communities have continuously improved the joint mechanism, and played the role of multiple principals in collaborative and co-governance. The current work of pandemic prevention and control has entered a period of normalization. What is the collaborative mechanism of multiple principals (Subdistrict headquarter, Community committee, Owners' committee, Community hospital, Local police station, Property management company, etc.) in urban communities participating in emergencies and how to seek ways to further improve the mechanism? Therefore, taking the community practice and actions in Guangzhou, China as an example, the present study employed a qualitative design, proposed to better community emergency governance mechanisms from the aspects of preparedness, response, communication and recovery, so as to provide a reference for other grassroots organizations.

Indexed as

COVID-19Public HealthChinaDisease OutbreaksHumansQualitative Researchemergency governance mechanismGuangzhou citymajor public health eventsmultiple principalsurban community

Identifiers

PMID36935705
PMCPMC10017779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.