ArticlePublic health ethics2025
Pandemic and Crisis Preparedness and Response: Conceptualizing Cultural, Social and Political Drivers of Trustworthiness and Collective Action.
Article in Public health ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research on influencing factors of public panic during infectious disease pandemics: a structural equation modeling study in five cities.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, trust in governments and between individuals was associated with lower rates of infections and mortality. Thus, understanding the conditions under which public trust allows for the development of effective policymaking, regular revision, and voluntary mobilization for effective implementation in times of crisis, is important from both a public health and governance perspective. In this article, we explore how core structures of distinct empirical, social and moral phenomena are theoretically interconnected into a conceptual model of trustworthiness in governing authorities. We hypothesize that empirical trustworthiness built over time needs to be combined with specific conditions for trustworthy agencies in emergency situations. We present a theoretically consistent conceptual model in the form of a compass tool that identifies areas of trust-conducive conditions for trustworthy authorities to address. The compass can be operationalized and empirically tested in specific national contexts. It can be applied by various groups to guide debate, explore, and monitor progress in developing trust-conducive conditions in support of a nation's holistic preparedness and response to crises. We have derived generalizable categories from specific issues occurring during the pandemic, but any team using this compass could dynamically align it for other types of crises.
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.