ArticleBMC public health2026
Mapping risk communication practices in public health emergencies: a scoping review and comparison with Italian regional pandemic plans.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective risk communication is a cornerstone of public health emergency preparedness and response. The COVID-19 pandemic and other recent crises have highlighted both the centrality of communication in sustaining trust and compliance, and the persistent gap between theoretical frameworks and operational practice.
methodsWithin the framework of the CreSP project (Comunicare il Rischio nelle Emergenze per la Sanità Pubblica), we conducted a scoping review to map international evidence on risk communication in public health emergencies, comparing it with Italian regional pandemic preparedness plans. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (1 January 2019-16 May 2024). Peer-reviewed studies addressing health risk communication in emergencies were included. In parallel, 18 Italian regional pandemic plans were identified and analysed using a structured checklist derived from inductive thematic analyses.
resultsOf the 12,479 records identified, 173 studies were included. Most publications originated from high-income countries and focused on COVID-19 pandemic response. Mass communication strategies, especially via social media, predominated, while targeted and participatory approaches were less frequent. The emergency response phase was far more represented than the preparedness or post-emergency phases. Key principles such as timeliness, transparency, and trust were widely discussed across studies, whereas equity, citizen engagement, and infodemic management were less consistently operationalised. Analysis of Italian regional pandemic plans revealed substantial heterogeneity. Although communication was universally acknowledged as important, it was often framed as top-down information dissemination. Structured mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, citizen participation, and infodemic management were inconsistently addressed.
conclusionsAlthough the concept of emergency risk communication is well-developed, its implementation varies across different levels of governance. The misalignment between scientific evidence and institutional frameworks-particularly regarding inclusivity, participatory models, and infodemic management-underscores the need for a more integrated and standardised national approach. Incorporating communication into preparedness infrastructures, supported by measurable indicators and workforce capacity building, is essential to strengthen resilience, equity, and public trust in the event of future emergencies.
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.