ArticleHeliyon2024
Evolutionary game analysis of multiple subjects in the management of major public health emergencies.
Article in Heliyon, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The frequent occurrence of major public health emergencies (MPHEs) significantly challenges national security, economic stability, social operation and the safety of people's lives and property worldwide. Consequently, enhancing the emergency management of MPHEs is critically urgent. This paper constructs a game model involving local government, social organisations, and the public for MPHE management, exploring strategy combinations and influencing factors across various scenarios. Several results were obtained. (1) Local government, social organisations, and the public each have positive and negative strategy choices based on cost-benefit analysis, leading to eight different strategy combinations. Furthermore, all three take positive strategies as the optimal way to achieve the game equilibrium. (2) The transformation of strategy combinations is primarily influenced by the cost-benefit gap and the strategic decisions of local government. (3) Altering a subject's initial strategy value doesn't change its final choice but impacts the time to achieve a stable strategy equilibrium. The severity of local government punishments on social organisations influences their strategic choices and the time to optimal strategy, whereas rewards to the public or social organisations only affect the time to achieve this strategy. The findings of this study can not only help improve the collaborative governance system of MPHEs but also provide scientific guidance on how governments can manage MPHEs.
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.