ArticlePloS one2023
Public health risk communication through the lens of a quarantined community: Insights from a coronavirus hotspot in Germany.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuarantine is one of the most effective interventions to contain an infectious disease outbreak, yet it is one of the most disruptive. We investigated the quarantine of an entire village to better understand risk communication requirements for groups.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey study on a single cohort of adult residents in Neustadt am Rennsteig, Germany, six weeks after the removal of a 14-day mandatory community quarantine. The survey response rate was 33% (289/883 residents).
findingsSurvey participants reported a lack of information on the quarantine implementation process. What authorities communicated was not necessarily what residents desired to know. While inhabitants used social media and telephones to communicate with each other, the official information sources were regional radio, television, newspapers and official websites. Public health authorities did not employ social media communication to engage with their communities. Despite a lack of information, the majority of respondents stated that they had complied with the quarantine and they expressed little sympathy for those who violated the quarantine. After lifting the quarantine, many respondents continued to avoid places where they suspected a significant risk of infection, such as family and friends' homes, doctor's offices and grocery stores.
interpretationThe survey participants utilised existing social networks to disseminate vital information and stabilise its group identity and behaviour (quarantine compliance). The authorities communicated sparsely in a unidirectional, top-down manner, without engaging the community. Despite the lack of official information, the social coherency of the group contributed to considerate and compliant conduct, but participants expressed dissatisfaction with official leadership and asked for more attention.
conclusionPublic health risk communication must engage with communities more effectively. This necessitates a deeper comprehension of groups, their modes of communication and their social needs.
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.