CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 228Public Relations and Crisis CommunicationCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactRisk Perception and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What have we learned about communication inequalities during the H1N1 pandemic: a systematic review of the literature

Open access
Lin, Leesa, Savoia, Elena, Agboola, Foluso, Viswanath, Kasisomayajula·2014·BMC Public Health
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-484PMC PMC4048599
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: During public health emergencies, public officials are busy in developing communication strategies to protect the population from existing or potential threats. However, a population's social and individual determinants (i.e. education, income, race/ethnicity) may lead to inequalities in individual or group-specific exposure to public health communication messages, and in the capacity to access, process, and act upon the information received by specific sub-groups- a concept defined as communication inequalities.The aims of this literature review are to: 1) characterize the scientific literature that examined issues related to communication to the public during the H1N1 pandemic, and 2) summarize the knowledge gained in our understanding of social determinants and their association with communication inequalities in the preparedness and response to an influenza pandemic. METHODS: Articles were searched in eight major communication, social sciences, and health and medical databases of scientific literature and reviewed by two independent reviewers by following the PRISMA guidelines. The selected articles were classified and analyzed in accordance with the Structural Influence Model of Public Health Emergency Preparedness Communications. RESULTS: A total of 118 empirical studies were included for final review. Among them, 78% were population-based studies and 22% were articles that employed information environment analyses techniques. Consistent results were reported on the association between social determinants of communication inequalities and emergency preparedness outcomes. Trust in public officials and source of information, worry and levels of knowledge about the disease, and routine media exposure as well as information-seeking behaviors, were related to greater likelihood of adoption of recommended infection prevention practices. When addressed in communication interventions, these factors can increase the effectiveness of the response to pandemics. CONCLUSIONS: Consistently across studies, a number of potential predictors of behavioral compliance to preventive recommendations during a pandemic were identified. Our findings show the need to include such evidence found in the development of future communication campaigns to ensure the highest rates of compliance with recommended protection measures and reduce communication inequalities during future emergencies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2458-14-484

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Structural Influence Model (SIM) of communication inequalities.
Figure 1 Structural Influence Model (SIM) of communication inequalities.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Distribution of articles by study characteristics.
Figure 2 Distribution of articles by study characteristics.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Proportions of studied determinants of communication inequalities during the H1N1 pandemic in population-based studies.
Figure 3 Proportions of studied determinants of communication inequalities during the H1N1 pandemic in population-based studies.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 75 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Rubin GJ, Potts HW, Michie S: The impact of communications about swine flu (influenza A H1N1v) on public responses to the outbreak: results from 36 national telephone surveys in the UK - Study 2: Factors predicting likely acceptance of vaccination against swine or seasonal flu. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2010, 14 (34): 183-266.
  2. Rubin GJ, Potts HW, Michie S: The impact of communications about swine flu (influenza A H1N1v) on public responses to the outbreak: results from 36 national telephone surveys in the UK - Study 3: The effects of advertising and media coverage on behavioural change during the early stages of the swine flu. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2010, 14 (34): 183-266.
  3. Keramarou M, Cottrell S, Evans MR, Moore C, Stiff RE, Elliott C, Thomas DR, Lyons M, Salmon RL: Two waves of pandemic influenza A(H1N1) 2009 in Wales--the possible impact of media coverage on consultation rates, April-December 2009. Euro Surveil. 2011, 16 (3): · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 226

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lin, L., Savoia, E., Agboola, F., & Viswanath, K.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Lin, Leesa
ORCID
Venue
BMC Public Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-05-21
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
484-484
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2458-14-484
PMC
PMC4048599
OpenAlex
W2120568830
Cited by
228
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (5PO1TP000307-05, 5p01tp000307-05)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
communication inequalities, H1N1 pandemic, pandemic influenza preparedness, social determinants, health communication, information sources, worry, health knowledge, media exposure, information seeking, infection prevention practices, compliance behavior
MeSH terms
Humans, Influenza, Human, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Public Health, Research Design, Socioeconomic Factors, Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype, Healthcare Disparities, Health Communication, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review