Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37968676›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2023

Learning from COVID-19: government leaders' perspectives to improve emergency risk communication.

Elena Savoia, Rachael Piltch-Loeb, Eva H Stanton, Howard K Koh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elena SavoiaDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. esavoia@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8300-1177
Rachael Piltch-LoebDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Eva H StantonEmergency Preparedness Research Evaluation and Practice (EPREP) Program, Division of Policy Translation and Leadership Development, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Howard K KohDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Harvard University · US

Funding

United Kingdom Cabinet Office #100683EPID
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the challenges of effective emergency risk communication (ERC) to protect public health, including the difficulty in tackling the spread of inaccurate information. This study aimed to understand those challenges and potential solutions by interviewing leading government spokespersons and their advisors from around the world with experience during large scale emergencies. Interviews were conducted with 27 individuals representing governments from 19 countries across five continents. Thematic analysis, using both a deductive and inductive approach, organized and identified salient themes and patterns that emerged from the interview data.

resultsThe thematic analysis of the interviews' data led to the identification of 9 principles of communication: 1) Timeliness, 2) Transparency, 3) Coordination, 4) Accuracy and Consistency, 5) Accountability and Integrity, 6) Independence from politics, 7) Responsiveness, 8) Equity, 9) Trust and Empathy. We also developed 36 recommendations actionable by government agencies to enhance the practice of the 9 principles. Examples include the need for: proactive communication strategies, permanent communication task forces integrated into preparedness and response efforts, robust processes to enhance open discussion of controversial topics within government agencies, clarification of how various branches of government coordinate to oversee specific aspects of the overall communication, and development of relationships across public and private entities ahead of a crisis.

conclusionsOur findings suggest key practical recommendations for leaders of government agencies to enhance ERC capabilities going forward. Before a crisis, they must constantly review internal processes and integrate ERC functions into overall communication planning efforts. During a crisis, they must coordinate roles and responsibilities across branches of governments, strive to communicate to a range of populations to uphold equity, maintain transparency by avoiding information voids on controversial issues and build trust by building relationships with a variety of community leaders. After a crisis, government agencies should continue the practice of social listening to hear more about the public's informational needs, strengthen civic participation processes, and understand how an always evolving information environment can best be leveraged during future crises.

Indexed as

COVID-19CommunicationGovernmentHumansPoliticsPublic HealthCOVID-19Emergency risk communicationGovernment responsePrinciples

Identifiers

PMID37968676
PMCPMC10652548
OpenAlexW4388725315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.