Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38698988›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Evolutionary game analysis of multiple subjects in the management of major public health emergencies.

Rui Nan, Jing Chen, Wenjun Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

3 authors.

Rui NanSchool of Law and Humanities, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), Beijing, 100083, China.
Jing ChenSchool of Law and Humanities, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), Beijing, 100083, China.
Wenjun ZhuSchool of Law and Humanities, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), Beijing, 100083, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Emergency managementEvolutionary gameMultiple subjectsPublic health emergency

Identifiers

PMID38698988
PMCPMC11064152

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.