ArticleUrban studies (Edinburgh, Scotland)2023
Governing public health emergencies during the coronavirus disease outbreak: Lessons from four Chinese cities in the first wave.
Article in Urban studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding carbon resilience under public health emergencies: a synthetic difference-in-differences approach.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Urban public health emergencies and the COVID-19 pandemic. Part 2: Infrastructures, urban governance and civil society.Urban studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2023Article
- Towards a constructed order of co-governance: Understanding the state-society dynamics of neighbourhood collaborative responses to COVID-19 in urban China.Urban studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2023Article
- Use of Urban Residential Community Parks for Stress Management During the COVID-19 Lockdown Period in China.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had a far-reaching impact on urban living, prompting emergency preparedness and response from public health governance at multiple levels. The Chinese government has adopted a series of policy measures to control infectious disease, for which cities are the key spatial units. This research traces and reports analyses of those policy measures and their evolution in four Chinese cities: Zhengzhou, Hangzhou, Shanghai and Chengdu. The theoretical framework stems from conceptualisations of urban governance and its role in public health emergencies, wherein crisis management and emergency response are highlighted. In all four cities, the trend curves of cumulative diagnosed cases, critical policies launched in key time nodes and local governance approaches in the first wave were identified and compared. The findings suggest that capable local leadership is indispensable for controlling the coronavirus epidemic, yet local governments' approaches are varied, contributing to dissimilar local epidemic control policy pathways and positive outcomes in the fight against COVID-19. The effectiveness of disease control is determined by how local governments' measures have adapted to geospatial and socioeconomic heterogeneity. The coordinated actions from central to local governments also reveal an efficient, top-down command transmission and execution system for coping with the pandemic. This article argues that effective control of pandemics requires both a holistic package of governance strategies and locally adaptive governance measures/processes, and concludes with proposals for both a more effective response at the local level and identification of barriers to achieving these responses within diverse subnational institutional contexts.
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.