The More the Better? A Comparison of the Information Sources Used by the Public during Two Infectious Disease Outbreaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent infectious disease outbreaks have resulted in renewed recognition of the importance of risk communication planning and execution to public health control strategies. Key to these efforts is public access to information that is understandable, reliable and meets their needs for informed decision-making on protective health behaviours. Learning from the trends in sources used in previous outbreaks will enable improvements in information access in future outbreaks. Two separate random-digit dialled telephone surveys were conducted in Alberta, Canada, to explore information sources used by the public, together with their perceived usefulness and credibility, during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic (n = 1209) and 2009-2010 H1N1 pandemic (n = 1206). Traditional mass media were the most used information sources in both surveys. Although use of the Internet increased from 25% during SARS to 56% during H1N1, overall use of social media was not as high as anticipated. Friends and relatives were commonly used as an information source, but were not deemed very useful or credible. Conversely, doctors and health professionals were considered credible, but not consulted as frequently. The use of five or more information sources increased by almost 60% between the SARS and H1N1 surveys. There was a shift to older, more educated and more affluent respondents between the surveys, most likely caused by a decrease in the use of landlines amongst younger Canadians. It was concluded that people are increasingly using multiple sources of health risk information, presumably in a complementary manner. Subsequently, although using online media is important, this should be used to augment rather than replace more traditional information channels. Efforts should be made to improve knowledge transfer to health care professionals and doctors and provide them with opportunities to be more accessible as information sources. Finally, the future use of telephone surveys needs to account for the changing demographics of the respondents accessed through such surveys.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".