MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386656971 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckab164.639

10.F. Workshop: Applying behavioral science for public health communication:insights from global COVID-19 initiatives

2021· article· en· W4386656971 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsGovernment (linguistics)Public healthPandemicContext (archaeology)Multidisciplinary approachPolitical sciencePublic engagementBehavioural sciencesPsychological interventionGlobal healthPsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the context of a highly contagious virus and a global pandemic, the key to slowing the spread of COVID-19 and successfully transitioning through the phases of the pandemic and into ‘life after COVID', is public adherence to the unprecedented and rapidly evolving behaviour-based government policies. From social distancing and mask wearing to greater vaccine uptake, the successful implementation of public health interventions around the world revolves around effective community engagement and health communication initiatives that are essential for encouraging informed decision making, enabling positive behaviour change, and maintaining trust among the public. The current global crisis has placed behavioural science at the forefront of multidisciplinary pandemic responses and crisis management initiatives on both local and global level. This workshop will build upon the findings from the global research initiative (The International Assessment of COVID-19-related Attitudes, Concerns, Responses and Impacts in Relation to Public Health Policies (iCARE) study), and the authors and panellists will provide insights on how government communication initiatives can be leveraged to incorporate concepts from behavioural sciences in order to improve adherence to preventive behaviours. The structure of the workshop will include two presentations, followed by a panel discussion. In particular, the authors will highlight successful examples and stress the enormous potential of behavioural sciences to improve adherence to public health and government policies at reduced costs. They will aim to increase audience's understanding on theories of behaviour change and complex systems that influence human behaviour, including individual factors, close environment, social, and systems influences. Moreover, they will discuss feasible solutions for strategic use of behaviour change communication in government interventions, including the application of tailored approaches and targeted messaging across a variety of settings to promote the adoption of healthy behaviours and reduce risk taking at the population level. Lastly, the panellists will reflect upon some feasibility issues in a time-sensitive emergency scenario, such as the need for continuous assessment of the drivers of population behaviours and monitoring of communication impacts. Speakers/Panelists Elena Altieri Lead - Behavioural Insights at WHO, Geneva, Switzerland Tanja Kuchenmuller Unit Head Evidence to Policy and Impact, WHO Evidence-informed Policy Network, Geneva, Switzerland Simon L. Bacon Concordia University, MBMC, CIUSSS NIM, Montreal, Canada Kim L. Lavoie University of Quebec at Montreal, MBMC, CIUSSS-NIM, Montreal, Canada Key messages In the context of a global pandemic, application of behavioural science principles into public health communication activities is critical for optimal publics’ adherence to preventive behaviours. Understanding the motivators of engaging in COVID-19 mitigation, within the context of well-defined behavioural theories has had a direct positive impact on several government approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0150.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.422
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.082 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207