TY - JOUR A1 - Loss, Julika A1 - Boklage, Evgeniya A1 - Jordan, Susanne A1 - Jenny, Mirjam A. A1 - Weishaar, Heide A1 - El Bcheraoui, Charbel T1 - Risikokommunikation bei der Eindämmung der COVID-19-Pandemie BT - Herausforderungen und Erfolg versprechende Ansätze BT - challenges and promising approaches JF - Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz N2 - Risk communication plays a central role in public health emergencies: it must enable informed decisions, promote protective or life-sustaining behaviour, and maintain trust in public institutions. In addition, uncertainties in knowledge must be named transparently; irrational fears and rumours must be refuted. Success factors for risk communication are the participation of citizens as well as the continuous recording of risk perception and risk competence in population groups. The current COVID-19 (corona virus disease 2019) pandemic poses specific challenges for risk communication. The state of knowledge on many important aspects concerning COVID-19 was and is often uncertain or preliminary, e.g. on transmission, symptoms, long-term effects and immunity. Communication is characterised by scientific language and an array of figures and statistics, which can render the content difficult to understand. Alongside the official announcements and statements by experts, COVID-19 is widely communicated on social media, spreading misinformation and speculation; this "infodemic" can complicate risk communication. Various national and international scientific projects will help tailor risk communication on COVID-19 to target groups and thereby render it more effective. These projects include explorative studies on how people deal with COVID-19-related information; the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) project, a regularly conducted online survey on risk perception and protective behaviour; and an interdisciplinary qualitative study that compares the design, implementation and effectiveness of risk communication strategies in four countries. N2 - Risikokommunikation spielt eine zentrale Rolle in Public-Health-Notlagen: Sie muss informierte Entscheidungen ermöglichen, schützendes bzw. lebenserhaltendes Verhalten fördern und das Vertrauen in öffentliche Institutionen bewahren. Zudem müssen Unsicherheiten über wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse transparent benannt werden, irrationale Ängste und Gerüchte entkräftet werden. Risikokommunikation sollte die Bevölkerung partizipativ einbeziehen. Ihre Risikowahrnehmung und -kompetenz müssen kontinuierlich erfasst werden. In der aktuellen Pandemie der Coronavirus-Krankheit 2019 (COVID-19) ergeben sich spezifische Herausforderungen für die Risikokommunikation. Der Wissensstand zu vielen wichtigen Aspekten, die COVID-19 betreffen, war und ist oftmals unsicher oder vorläufig, z. B. zu Übertragung, Symptomen, Langzeitfolgen und Immunität. Die Kommunikation ist durch wissenschaftliche Sprache sowie eine Vielzahl von Kennzahlen und Statistiken geprägt, was die Verständlichkeit erschweren kann. Neben offiziellen Mitteilungen und Einschätzungen von Expertinnen und Experten wird über COVID-19 in großem Umfang in sozialen Medien kommuniziert, dabei werden auch Fehlinformationen und Spekulationen verbreitet; diese „Infodemie“ erschwert die Risikokommunikation. Nationale wie internationale Forschungsprojekte sollen helfen, die Risikokommunikation zu COVID-19 zielgruppenspezifischer und effektiver zu machen. Dazu gehören u. a. explorative Studien zum Umgang mit COVID-19-bezogenen Informationen, das COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO), ein regelmäßig durchgeführtes Onlinesurvey zu Risikowahrnehmung und Schutzverhalten sowie eine interdisziplinäre qualitative Studie, die die Konzeption, Umsetzung und Wirksamkeit von Risikokommunikationsstrategien vergleichend in 4 Ländern untersucht. T2 - Risk communication in the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic KW - Risk perception KW - Risk competence KW - SARS-CoV‑ 2 KW - Crisis management KW - Media Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-021-03283-3 SN - 1436-9990 SN - 1437-1588 VL - 64 IS - 3 SP - 294 EP - 303 PB - Springer CY - Berlin ; Heidelberg ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Rebitschek, Felix G. A1 - Ellermann, Christin A1 - Jenny, Mirjam A. A1 - Siegel, Nico A. A1 - Spinner, Christian A1 - Wagner, Gert G. T1 - Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level JF - PLOS ONE N2 - Objective For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences–while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison). Results Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds. Conclusion Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274186 SN - 1932-6203 VL - 17 IS - 9 PB - PLOS CY - San Francisco ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Herzog, Stefan M. A1 - Jenny, Mirjam A. A1 - Nickel, Christian A1 - Ortega, Ricardo Nieves A1 - Bingisser, Roland T1 - Emergency department patients with weakness or fatigue BT - can physicians predict their outcomes at the front door? A prospective observational study JF - PLOS ONE N2 - Background Generalized weakness and fatigue are underexplored symptoms in emergency medicine. Triage tools often underestimate patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with these nonspecific symptoms (Nemec et al., 2010). At the same time, physicians' disease severity rating (DSR) on a scale from 0 (not sick at all) to 10 (extremely sick) predicts key outcomes in ED patients (Beglinger et al., 2015; Rohacek et al., 2015). Our goals were (1) to characterize ED patients with weakness and/or fatigue (W|F); to explore (2) to what extent physicians' DSR at triage can predict five key outcomes in ED patients with W|F; (3) how well DSR performs relative to two commonly used benchmark methods, the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI); (4) to what extent DSR provides predictive information beyond ESI, CCI, or their linear combination, i.e., whether ESI and CCI should be used alone or in combination with DSR; and (5) to what extent ESI, CCI, or their linear combination provide predictive information beyond DSR alone, i.e., whether DSR should be used alone or in combination with ESI and / or CCI. Methods Prospective observational study between 2013-2015 (analysis in 2018-2020, study team blinded to hypothesis) conducted at a single center. We study an all-comer cohort of 3,960 patients (48% female patients, median age = 51 years, 94% completed 1-year follow-up). We looked at two primary outcomes (acute morbidity (Bingisser et al., 2017; Weigel et al., 2017) and all-cause 1- year mortality) and three secondary outcomes (in-hospital mortality, hospitalization and transfer to ICU). We assessed the predictive power (i.e., resolution, measured as the Area under the ROC Curve, AUC) of the scores and, using logistic regression, their linear combinations. Findings Compared to patients without W|F (n = 3,227), patients with W|F (n = 733) showed higher prevalences for all five outcomes, reported more symptoms across both genders, and received higher DSRs (median = 4; interquartile range (IQR) = 3-6 vs. median = 3; IQR = 2-5). DSR predicted all five outcomes well above chance (i.e., AUCs > similar to 0.70), similarly well for both patients with and without W|F, and as good as or better than ESI and CCI in patients with and without W|F (except for 1-year mortality where CCI performs better). For acute morbidity, hospitalization, and transfer to ICU there is clear evidence that adding DSR to ESI and/or CCI improves predictions for both patient groups; for 1-year mortality and in-hospital mortality this holds for most, but not all comparisons. Adding ESI and/or CCI to DSR generally did not improve performance or even decreased it. Conclusions The use of physicians' disease severity rating has never been investigated in patients with generalized weakness and fatigue. We show that physicians' prediction of acute morbidity, mortality, hospitalization, and transfer to ICU through their DSR is also accurate in these patients. Across all patients, DSR is less predictive of acute morbidity for female than male patients, however. Future research should investigate how emergency physicians judge their patients' clinical state at triage and how this can be improved and used in simple decision aids. Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239902 SN - 1932-6203 VL - 15 IS - 11 PB - Public Library of Science CY - San Francisco, California, US ER -