ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2024
Dealing with dissent from the medical ranks: Public health authorities and COVID-19 communication.
Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2024. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During a public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health authorities will typically be criticized for their efforts. When such criticism comes from the ranks of medical personnel, the challenge becomes more pronounced for the authorities, as it suggests a public negotiation of who has sufficient expertise to handle the pandemic. Hence, the authorities are faced with the challenge of defending their competence and advice, while at the same time adhering to a bureaucratic/scientific ethos that imposes communicative boundaries. This explorative study analyzes the response strategies used by the Norwegian public health authorities in this regard. A main finding is that the authorities shunned aggressive language and mostly relied on a strategy pointing to well-established values such as proportionality (between the measures and the gravitas of the epidemiological situation) and relevance (the measures should meet the challenge in question).
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.