Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (3)
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (3) (entfernen)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (3)
Schlagworte
- Crisis management (1)
- Media (1)
- Risk competence (1)
- Risk perception (1)
- SARS-CoV‑ 2 (1)
Institut
- Fakultät für Gesundheitswissenschaften (3) (entfernen)
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.
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
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.