Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38259753›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

How can the collaborative participation of regulators, whistleblowers, and parties effectively promote rumor management in public health emergencies?

Yalin Wang, Liping Qi, Shaoshuo Cai

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yalin WangGuangzhou Huashang College, Guangzhou, China.
Liping QiSchool of Humanities, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Shaoshuo CaiSchool of Journalism and Communication, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Guangzhou Automobile Group (China) · CNHunan Normal University · CNUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To effectively address the mental health risks associated with public health emergencies, it is crucial to actively manage rumors. This study explores the dynamic evolutionary process of rumor diffusion and its collaborative governance in public health emergencies. A game-theoretic model is constructed, involving three main actors: regulators, parties involved in public health emergencies (PIPHE), and whistle-blowers. The behaviors and game outcomes of each party are analyzed, and the effectiveness and feasibility of the model are validated through numerical simulations. The findings of this study reveal that various factors, such as regulatory costs, penalty income, reputation damage for regulators; image loss, reputation enhancement, penalty expenditure for PIPHE; and time costs, social responsibility, and reward income for whistle-blowers, all influence the behavioral choices and game equilibrium of each party. Optimization strategies for rumor governance are proposed in this study, including enhancing the sense of responsibility and capability among regulators, increasing transparency and credibility among PIPHE, and encouraging and protecting the participation of whistle-blowers. This study provides a comprehensive analytical framework for rumor governance in public health emergencies, contributing to improving the governance of public health emergencies and maintaining online public health orders for social sustainability.

Indexed as

EmergenciesWhistleblowingHealth ExpendituresHumansIncomePublic Healthcollaborative governanceevolutionary gamespublic health emergenciesrumor managementsocial sustainability

Identifiers

PMID38259753
PMCPMC10800363
OpenAlexW4390665578

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.