IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Traci Hong, Zilu Tang, Jiaxi Wu, Eleanor J Murray, Derry Wijaya, Christopher E Beaudoin
{"title":"Posted in Error: Did the CDC's Retraction of Aerosol Guidance Undercut Its Public Reputation?","authors":"Traci Hong, Zilu Tang, Jiaxi Wu, Eleanor J Murray, Derry Wijaya, Christopher E Beaudoin","doi":"10.1080/10810730.2024.2427943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While there is ample research on the influence of retracted scientific publications on author reputation, less is known about how a health organization's retraction of scientific guidance can impact public perceptions of the organization. This study centers on the aerosol guidance retraction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2020. X/Twitter social media data were collected via ForSight from September 15 to October 8, 2020, with a machine learning algorithm specifically developed and used to detect sentiment toward the CDC. Regression analyses of the non-bot sample (<i>N</i> = 265,326) tested for differences in CDC sentiment across four stages: 1) baseline; 2) CDC guidance change; 3) CDC retraction of the prior guidance change; and 4) CDC reversion to a tempered form of the initial guidance change. The results show that sentiment toward the CDC increased from Time 1 to Time 2, then decreased for Time 3 with the \"posted in error\" retraction, but then increased for Time 4 back to a level similar to Time 2. That public perceptions of the CDC could improve after these changes in scientific guidance may be attributed to its self-report of the retraction and reporting that the retraction was a result of unintentional error. This study connects theories of reputation management and trust repair with the growing empirical research on retractions of published scientific research to provide a theoretical explanation for how a major public health organization can mitigate damage to its reputation in the short term.</p>","PeriodicalId":16026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2024.2427943","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于撤回科学出版物对作者声誉的影响已有大量研究,但关于卫生组织撤回科学指南会如何影响公众对该组织的看法却知之甚少。本研究以 2020 年美国疾病控制和预防中心(CDC)撤回气溶胶指南为中心。我们通过 ForSight 收集了 2020 年 9 月 15 日至 10 月 8 日期间的 X/Twitter 社交媒体数据,并使用专门开发的机器学习算法来检测对疾病预防控制中心的情绪。对非机器人样本(N=265,326)进行回归分析,测试了疾病预防控制中心在四个阶段的情感差异:1)基线;2)疾病预防控制中心的指导改变;3)疾病预防控制中心收回之前的指导改变;4)疾病预防控制中心恢复到最初指导改变的缓和形式。结果显示,从时间 1 到时间 2,公众对疾病预防控制中心的看法有所上升,但随着 "错误发布 "的撤回,公众对疾病预防控制中心的看法在时间 3 有所下降,但在时间 4 又有所上升,回到了与时间 2 相似的水平。在科学指导发生变化后,公众对疾病预防控制中心的看法得以改善,这可能要归功于该机构对撤稿事件的自我报告,以及报告撤稿是无意错误的结果。本研究将声誉管理和信任修复理论与日益增多的关于撤回已发表科研成果的实证研究联系起来,为大型公共卫生组织如何在短期内减轻声誉损害提供了理论解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Posted in Error: Did the CDC's Retraction of Aerosol Guidance Undercut Its Public Reputation?

While there is ample research on the influence of retracted scientific publications on author reputation, less is known about how a health organization's retraction of scientific guidance can impact public perceptions of the organization. This study centers on the aerosol guidance retraction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2020. X/Twitter social media data were collected via ForSight from September 15 to October 8, 2020, with a machine learning algorithm specifically developed and used to detect sentiment toward the CDC. Regression analyses of the non-bot sample (N = 265,326) tested for differences in CDC sentiment across four stages: 1) baseline; 2) CDC guidance change; 3) CDC retraction of the prior guidance change; and 4) CDC reversion to a tempered form of the initial guidance change. The results show that sentiment toward the CDC increased from Time 1 to Time 2, then decreased for Time 3 with the "posted in error" retraction, but then increased for Time 4 back to a level similar to Time 2. That public perceptions of the CDC could improve after these changes in scientific guidance may be attributed to its self-report of the retraction and reporting that the retraction was a result of unintentional error. This study connects theories of reputation management and trust repair with the growing empirical research on retractions of published scientific research to provide a theoretical explanation for how a major public health organization can mitigate damage to its reputation in the short term.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives is the leading journal covering the full breadth of a field that focuses on the communication of health information globally. Articles feature research on: • Developments in the field of health communication; • New media, m-health and interactive health communication; • Health Literacy; • Social marketing; • Global Health; • Shared decision making and ethics; • Interpersonal and mass media communication; • Advances in health diplomacy, psychology, government, policy and education; • Government, civil society and multi-stakeholder initiatives; • Public Private partnerships and • Public Health campaigns. Global in scope, the journal seeks to advance a synergistic relationship between research and practical information. With a focus on promoting the health literacy of the individual, caregiver, provider, community, and those in the health policy, the journal presents research, progress in areas of technology and public health, ethics, politics and policy, and the application of health communication principles. The journal is selective with the highest quality social scientific research including qualitative and quantitative studies.
×
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