Engaging Communities in Emergency Risk and Crisis Communication: Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis

Q1 Social Sciences
J. Novak, Ashleigh M. Day, P. Sopory, Lee Wilkins, D. Padgett, Stine Eckert, J. Noyes, T. Allen, Nyka Alexander, Marsha L. Vanderford, G. Gamhewage
{"title":"Engaging Communities in Emergency Risk and Crisis Communication: Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis","authors":"J. Novak, Ashleigh M. Day, P. Sopory, Lee Wilkins, D. Padgett, Stine Eckert, J. Noyes, T. Allen, Nyka Alexander, Marsha L. Vanderford, G. Gamhewage","doi":"10.30658/JICRCR.2.1.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned systematic reviews to assist with the development of new emergency risk communication guidelines that will impact responses and distribution of resources at all levels. This mixed-method evidence synthesis, guided by Cochrane principles and methods, examined the extant research in countries throughout the world, published from 2003 to 2016, related to the best practices to engage communities in preparing for and responding to emergency events with public health implications. Although few studies directly examined which strategies or tactics effectively engage public participation, many studies reinforced the importance of community participation. The findings support the perspective that emergency events are communicatively understood by all publics and that they benefit from emergency risk communication before, during, and after such events, especially when grounded in local contexts. Although the importance of local context limits the generalizability of risk communication, it is important to continue studying strategies and tactics to cultivate participation among all stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":34327,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30658/JICRCR.2.1.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned systematic reviews to assist with the development of new emergency risk communication guidelines that will impact responses and distribution of resources at all levels. This mixed-method evidence synthesis, guided by Cochrane principles and methods, examined the extant research in countries throughout the world, published from 2003 to 2016, related to the best practices to engage communities in preparing for and responding to emergency events with public health implications. Although few studies directly examined which strategies or tactics effectively engage public participation, many studies reinforced the importance of community participation. The findings support the perspective that emergency events are communicatively understood by all publics and that they benefit from emergency risk communication before, during, and after such events, especially when grounded in local contexts. Although the importance of local context limits the generalizability of risk communication, it is important to continue studying strategies and tactics to cultivate participation among all stakeholders.
社区参与应急风险和危机沟通:混合方法系统评价和证据综合
世界卫生组织(世界卫生组织)委托进行系统审查,以协助制定新的紧急风险沟通准则,从而影响各级的应对和资源分配。这种混合方法-证据综合在Cochrane原则和方法的指导下,审查了世界各国2003年至2016年发表的现有研究,这些研究涉及让社区参与准备和应对具有公共卫生影响的紧急事件的最佳实践。尽管很少有研究直接考察哪些策略或策略能有效地吸引公众参与,但许多研究都强调了社区参与的重要性。研究结果支持这样一种观点,即所有公众都能通过沟通方式理解紧急事件,并从此类事件之前、期间和之后的紧急风险沟通中受益,尤其是在基于当地环境的情况下。尽管当地环境的重要性限制了风险沟通的普遍性,但继续研究战略和策略以培养所有利益相关者的参与是很重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信