Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39691658›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

The manifestation and causes of public panic in the early stage of COVID-19 in China: a framework based on consciousness-attitude-behavior.

Changwei Wei, Jiaxi Xu, Zuying Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Changwei Wei *School of Public Policy and Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China.
Jiaxi Xu *School of Political Science and Public Administration, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Zuying XuSchool of Economics and Management, Huaibei Normal University, Huaibei, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic brought about a stark and devastating impact on global scales, affecting countries and their citizens profoundly. The public's lack of readiness for such an enigmatic and virulent threat led to widespread alarm, catalyzing a paradigm shift in both public conduct and governmental tactics. In the midst of this urgency, there was a notable lack of studies on the initial panic waves. Our study is designed to investigate the dynamics of public panic during the early stages of the pandemic, including its origins, and the public's perceptions and behaviors. Methods: Our research, conducted through a questionnaire survey employing snowball sampling, gathered critical data on the public's awareness, attitudes, and behaviors related to panic between February 23rd and March 25th, 2020. Results: The findings indicate a period of exceptionally intense and authentic public panic. This panic was a pervasive sentiment, manifesting in strong endorsements for rigorous epidemic control measures and heightened anxiety over virus-related information and family safety. The rapid spread of panic was also a notable characteristic. Conclusion: The public panic in response to COVID-19 was modulated by stringent prevention measures, with anxiety levels differing significantly based on occupation and health awareness. Notably, the rise of suspicious and distrustful actions was inextricably linked to an overwhelming sense of fear that gripped the public.

Indexed as

COVID-19PanicAdultAnxietyChinaConsciousnessFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19epidemicpanic attitudepanic behaviorpanic consciousness

Identifiers

PMID39691658
PMCPMC11651529

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.