Weeding out false information in disasters and emergencies: information recipients’ competency

Kim, Kyung Woo; Lyu, Hyeon-Suk; Gong, Do Young

doi:10.1080/12294659.2020.1857056

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of the research method, among the selected studies, qualitative method was included in eight cases,[ 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] mixed methods in four,[ 27 28 29 30 ] model development in seven,[ 15 16 31 32 33 34 35 ] cross sectional in three,[ 36 37 38 ] experimental in two,[ 28 39 ] a case study in two,[ 40 41 ] a case report in two,[ 42 43 ] clinical trial in one,[ 44 ] and survey in three. [ 45 46 ] The most common type of disaster among the selected studies was related to floods with 13 cases,[ 15 16 22 23 28 29 30 31 36 38 46 47 48 ] earthquake with two cases,[ 21 24 ] tornadoes with one case,[ 27 ] epidemics with three cases,[ 26 42 43 ] tsunamis with one case,[ 17 ] and nuclear accidents with one case. [ 22 ] In other studies, the type of incident was not specified.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models and components in disaster risk communication: A systematic literature review

Salmani

Fathollahzadeh²,

Morowatisharifabad³

et al. 2023

Journal of Education and Health Promotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Risk communication is considered a major factor in disaster risk management by the concerned policymakers and researchers. However, the incoherence of variables affecting risk communication in various studies makes it difficult to plan for disaster risk communication. This study aims to identify and classify the influential components in disaster risk communication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in 2020. Databases included PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. In searching for articles, there was no limit on the date of publication and the language of the article. The research addressed both natural and man-made disasters. The Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA) checklist was followed throughout the research, and the quality of the papers was assessed using the mixed methods evaluation tool (MMAT). RESULTS: In searching the articles, 3956 documents were obtained, of which 1025 duplicated articles were excluded. The titles and abstracts of the remaining documents (2931) were examined, of which 2822 were deleted, and the full text of 109 documents was studied for further assessment. Finally, after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria and reviewing the full texts, 32 documents were considered to extract the data and for quality assessment. On studying the full text of the obtained documents, 115 components were found, which were classified into five groups (message, message sender, message receiver, message environment, message process) and 13 subgroups. In addition, the obtained components were classified as those proposed by the authors of the article and those obtained from disaster risk communication models. CONCLUSION: Identifying the effective components in the disaster risk communication gives a more comprehensive view of risk communication to the disaster managers and executives and provides the decision-makers with an important platform to be able to use the components of risk communication and increase the impact of messages and ultimately increase people's preparedness for disasters in planning operations for the risk communication.

show abstract