Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38276793›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

What Can Public Health Administration Learn from the Decision-Making Processes during COVID-19?

Andrew Joyce, Emma Risely, Celia Green, Gemma Carey, Fiona Buick

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Andrew JoyceCentre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn 3122, Australia.
Emma RiselyCentre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn 3122, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1722-8426
Celia GreenCentre for Social Impact, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia.
Gemma CareyCentre for Social Impact, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia.
Fiona BuickSchool of Business, University of New South Wales, Canberra 2612, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9559-9500

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human decision-making is prone to biases and the use of heuristics that can result in making logical errors and erroneous causal connections, which were evident during COVID-19 policy developments and potentially contributed to the inadequate and costly responses to COVID-19. There are decision-making frameworks and tools that can improve organisational decision-making. It is currently unknown as to what extent public health administrations have been using these structured organisational-level decision-making processes to counter decision-making biases. Current reviews of COVID-19 policies could examine not just the content of policy decisions but also how decisions were made. We recommend that understanding whether these decision-making processes have been used in public health administration is key to policy reform and learning from the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a research and practice gap that has significant implications for a wide range of public health policy areas and potentially could have made a profound difference in COVID-19-related policy responses.

Indexed as

COVID-19Public Health AdministrationHumansPandemicsPolicy MakingPublic HealthPublic PolicyadministrationCOVID-19decision-making processesorganisational capacitypublic health

Identifiers

PMID38276793
PMCPMC10815044

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.