Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37607772›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2023

Voices of society: the emergence of civil-society practices aiming to engage in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands.

Sophie Kemper, Renate van den Broek, Sarah van Hameren, J Frank H Kupper, Marloes E J Bongers, Esther de Weger, Marion de Vries, Aura Timen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 82% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sophie KemperNational Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands sophie.kemper@rivm.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-4133-5344
Renate van den Broek *National Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Sarah van Hameren *National Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
J Frank H KupperAthena Institute, Faculty of Science, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marloes E J BongersNational Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Esther de WegerAthena Institute, Faculty of Science, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marion de VriesNational Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Aura TimenAthena Institute, Faculty of Science, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public groups mobilised themselves in civil-society engagement practices (CSEPs) aiming to improve or suggest alternative epidemic management. This study explores the motivation to establish CSEPs and their perceived contributions to epidemic management, to gain insight whether integrating views of CSEPs could add value. A systematic online search was executed to identify CSEPs focused on COVID-19 management between January 2020 and January 2022 in the Netherlands. In order to create a comprehensible overview of the identified CSEPs, relevant characteristics were gathered and mapped, for example, local or national scope, subject of action and goals. A selection of CSEPs was interviewed between April and June 2022 to study their motivators to start the CSEPs and perceived contributions to management. The search resulted in the identification of 22 CSEPs, of which members of 14 CSEPs were interviewed. These members indicated several issues that motivated the start of their CSEP, namely; shortage of equipment, sense of solidarity, and a perceived lack of governmental action, lack of democratic values and lack in diversity of perspectives in epidemic management. All respondents believed to have contributed to policy or society, by influencing opinions, and occasionally by altering policy. However, respondents encountered obstacles in their attempts to contribute such as inability to establish contact with authorities, feeling unheard or undermined, and complications due to the interplay of political interests. In conclusion, CSEPs have fulfilled various roles such as providing alternative management policies, producing equipment, representing the needs of vulnerable populations, and supporting citizens and providing citizens with other viewpoints and information. The identified motivators to establish CSEPs in this study uncover room for improvements in policy. These insights, together with the identified perceived barriers of CSEPs, can be used to improve the connection between (future) epidemic management and public priorities and interests.

Indexed as

COVID-19GovernmentGroup ProcessesHumansNetherlandsPandemicscontrol strategiesCOVID-19health policypublic healthqualitative study

Identifiers

PMID37607772
PMCPMC10445389
OpenAlexW4386074713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.