Experiences of Public Health Professionals Regarding Crisis Communication During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic emerged in the digital age and has been called the first "data-driven pandemic" in human history. The global response demonstrated that many countries had failed to effectively prepare for such an event. Learning through experience in a crisis is one way to improve the crisis management process. As the world has returned to normal after the pandemic, questions about crisis management have been raised in several countries and require careful consideration. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to collect and organize public health professionals' experiences in crisis communication to the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, and Communication Abstracts in February 2024 to locate English-language articles that qualitatively investigated the difficulties and needs experienced by health professionals in their communication activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: This review included 17 studies. Our analysis identified 7 themes and 20 subthemes. The 7 themes were difficulties in pandemic communication, difficulties caused by the "infodemic," difficulties in partnerships within or outside of public health, difficulties in community engagement, difficulties in effective communication, burnout among communicators, and the need to train communication specialists and establish a permanent organization specializing in communication. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified the gaps between existing crisis communication guidelines and real-world crisis communication in the digital environment and clarified the difficulties and needs that arose from these gaps. Crisis communication strategies and guidelines should be updated with reference to the themes revealed in this review to effectively respond to subsequent public health crises. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024528975; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=528975. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/58040.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".