ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1558-557X
Current Organisation
World Health Organization
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 12-2015
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 27-09-2021
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.16984.1
Abstract: Background : With a rapidly changing evidence base, high-quality clinical management guidelines (CMGs) are key tools for aiding clinical decision making and increasing access to best available evidence-based care. A rapid review of COVID-19 CMGs found most lacked methodological rigour, overlooked at-risk populations, and varied in treatment recommendations. Furthermore, social science literature highlights the complexity of implementing guidelines in local contexts where they were not developed and the resulting potential to compound health inequities. This study aimed to evaluate access to, inclusivity of, and implementation of COVID-19 CMGs in different settings. Methods : A cross-sectional survey of clinicians worldwide was conducted from 15 th June to 20 th July 2020, to explore access to and implementation of COVID-19 CMGs, and treatment and supportive care recommendations provided. Data on accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of CMGs were analysed by geographic location. Results : 76 clinicians from 27 countries responded: 82% from high-income countries, 17% from lower middle-income countries (LMICs). Most respondents reported access to COVID-19 CMGs and confidence in their implementation. However, many respondents, particularly from LMICs, reported barriers to implementation, including limited access to treatment and equipment. Only 20% of respondents reported having access to CMGs covering care for children, 25% for pregnant women, and 50% for older adults ( years). Identified themes were for CMGs to include recommendations for at-risk populations and settings, include supportive care guidance, and be updated as evidence emerges, and for clinicians to have training and access to recommended treatments to support implementation. Conclusion : Our findings highlight important gaps in COVID-19 CMG development and implementation challenges during a pandemic, particularly affecting at-risk populations and lower resourced settings. This study identifies an urgent need for an improved CMG development framework that is inclusive and adaptable to emerging evidence and considers contextual implementation support, to improve access to evidence-based care globally.
Publisher: European Respiratory Society (ERS)
Date: 04-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2017
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 07-2023
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 27-09-2021
DOI: 10.1057/S41599-021-00898-4
Abstract: In responding to the widespread impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have proposed and implemented documentation policies that confer varying levels of freedoms or restrictions (e.g., ability to travel) based on in iduals’ infection status or potential immunity. Most discussions around immunity- or infection-based documentation policies have focused on scientific plausibility, economic benefit, and challenges relating to ethics and equity. As COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out, attention has turned to confirmation of immunity and how documentation such as vaccine certificates or immunity passports can be implemented. However, the contextual inequities and local variabilities interacting with COVID-19 related documentation policies hinder a one-size-fits-all approach. In this Comment, we argue that social science perspectives can and should provide additional insight into these issues, through a erse range of current and historical ex les. This would enable policymakers and researchers to better understand and mitigate current and longer-term differential impacts of COVID-19 immunity-based documentation policies in different contexts. Furthermore, social science research methods can uniquely provide feedback to inform adjustments to policy implementation in real-time and help to document how these policy measures are felt differently across communities, populations, and countries, potentially for years to come. This Comment, updated as of 15 August 2021, combines precedents established in historical disease outbreaks and current experiences with COVID-19 immunity-based documentation policies to highlight valuable lessons and an acute need for further social science research which should inform effective and context-appropriate future public health policy and action.
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 10-11-2022
Abstract: n infodemic is excess information, including false or misleading information, that spreads in digital and physical environments during a public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an unprecedented global infodemic that has led to confusion about the benefits of medical and public health interventions, with substantial impact on risk-taking and health-seeking behaviors, eroding trust in health authorities and compromising the effectiveness of public health responses and policies. Standardized measures are needed to quantify the harmful impacts of the infodemic in a systematic and methodologically robust manner, as well as harmonizing highly ergent approaches currently explored for this purpose. This can serve as a foundation for a systematic, evidence-based approach to monitoring, identifying, and mitigating future infodemic harms in emergency preparedness and prevention. n this paper, we summarize the Fifth World Health Organization (WHO) Infodemic Management Conference structure, proceedings, outcomes, and proposed actions seeking to identify the interdisciplinary approaches and frameworks needed to enable the measurement of the burden of infodemics. n iterative human-centered design (HCD) approach and concept mapping were used to facilitate focused discussions and allow for the generation of actionable outcomes and recommendations. The discussions included 86 participants representing erse scientific disciplines and health authorities from 28 countries across all WHO regions, along with observers from civil society and global public health–implementing partners. A thematic map capturing the concepts matching the key contributing factors to the public health burden of infodemics was used throughout the conference to frame and contextualize discussions. Five key areas for immediate action were identified. he 5 key areas for the development of metrics to assess the burden of infodemics and associated interventions included (1) developing standardized definitions and ensuring the adoption thereof (2) improving the map of concepts influencing the burden of infodemics (3) conducting a review of evidence, tools, and data sources (4) setting up a technical working group and (5) addressing immediate priorities for postpandemic recovery and resilience building. The summary report consolidated group input toward a common vocabulary with standardized terms, concepts, study designs, measures, and tools to estimate the burden of infodemics and the effectiveness of infodemic management interventions. tandardizing measurement is the basis for documenting the burden of infodemics on health systems and population health during emergencies. Investment is needed into the development of practical, affordable, evidence-based, and systematic methods that are legally and ethically balanced for monitoring infodemics generating diagnostics, infodemic insights, and recommendations and developing interventions, action-oriented guidance, policies, support options, mechanisms, and tools for infodemic managers and emergency program managers.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2016
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 04-2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.03.31.21254680
Abstract: With a rapidly changing evidence base, high-quality clinical management guidelines (CMGs) are key tools for aiding clinical decision making and increasing access to best available evidence-based care. A rapid review of COVID-19 CMGs found that most lacked methodological rigour, overlooked many at-risk populations, and had variations in treatment recommendations. Furthermore, social science literature highlights the complexity of implementing guidelines in local contexts where they were not developed and the resulting potential to compound health inequities. The aim of this study was to evaluate access to, inclusivity of, and implementation of Covid-19 CMGs in different settings. A cross-sectional survey of clinicians worldwide from 15 June to 20 July 2020, to explore access to and implementation of Covid-19 CMGs and treatment and supportive care recommendations provided. Data on accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of CMGs. were analyzed by geographic location. Seventy-six clinicians, from 27 countries responded, 82% from high-income countries, 17% from low-middle income countries. Most respondents reported access to Covid-19 CMG and confidence in implementation of these. However, many respondents, particularly from LMICs reported barriers to implementation, including limited access to treatments and equipment. Only 20% of respondents reported having access to CMGs covering care for children, 25% for pregnant women and 50% for older adults ( years). Themes emerging were for CMGs to include recommendations for different at-risk populations, and settings, include supportive care guidance, be readily updated as evidence emerges, and CMG implementation supported by training, and access to treatments recommended. Our findings highlight important gaps in Covid-19 CMG development and implementation challenges during a pandemic, particularly affecting different at-risk populations and lower resourced settings., to improve access in evidence-based care recommendations during an emergency. The findings identifies an urgent need for an improved framework for CMG development, that is inclusive and adaptable to emerging evidence and considers contextual implementation support, to improve access to evidence-based care globally.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 02-2022
DOI: 10.1038/S41398-022-01814-3
Abstract: In recent decades, respiratory infections, including SARS, HINI and the currently spreading COVID-19, caused by various viruses such as influenza and coronavirus have seriously threatened human health. It has generated inconsistent recommendations on the mandatory use of facemasks across countries on a population level due to insufficient evidence on the efficacy of facemask use among the general population. This meta-analysis aimed to explore (1) the efficacy of facemask use on preventing respiratory infections, and (2) the perceptions, intentions, and practice about facemask use among the general population worldwide. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, bioRxiv, and medRxiv databases since inception to August 17, 2020. From 21,341 records identified, eight RCTs on facemask in preventing infections and 78 studies on perception, intention, and practice of facemask use among the general population were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis of RCTs found a significant protective effect of facemask intervention (OR = 0.84 95% CI = 0.71–0.99 I 2 = 0%). This protective effect was even more pronounced when the intervention duration was more than two weeks (OR = 0.76 95% CI = 0.66–0.88 I 2 = 0%). The meta-analysis of observational studies on perception, intention, and practice on facemask use showed that 71% of respondents perceived facemasks to be effective for infection prevention, 68% of respondents would wear facemasks, and 54% of respondents wore facemasks for preventing respiratory infections. Differences in perception, intention, and practice behavior of facemask use in different regions may be related to the impact of respiratory infections, regional culture, and policies. The governments and relevant organizations should make effort to reduce the barriers in the use of facemasks.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2019
DOI: 10.1016/J.PUHE.2019.07.005
Abstract: The public and patients are primary contributors and beneficiaries of pandemic-relevant clinical research. However, their views on research participation during a pandemic have not been systematically studied. We aimed to understand public views regarding participation in clinical research during a hypothetical influenza pandemic. This is an international cross-sectional survey. We surveyed the views of nationally representative s les of people in Belgium, Poland, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, using a scenario-based instrument during the 2017 regional influenza season. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted. Of the 6804 respondents, 5572 (81.8%) thought pandemic-relevant research was important, and 5089 (74.8%) thought 'special rules' should be applied to make this research feasible. The respondents indicated willingness to take part in lower risk (4715, 69.3%) and higher risk (3585, 52.7%) primary care and lower risk (4780, 70.3%) and higher risk (4113, 60.4%) intensive care unit (ICU) study scenarios. For primary care studies, most (3972, 58.4%) participants preferred standard enrolment procedures such as prospective written informed consent, but 2327 (34.2%) thought simplified procedures would be acceptable. For ICU studies, 2800 (41.2%) preferred deferred consent, and 2623 (38.6%) preferred prospective third-party consent. Greater knowledge about pandemics, trust in a health professional, trust in the government, therapeutic misconception and having had ICU experience as a patient or carer predicted increased willingness to participate in pandemic-relevant research. Our study indicates current public support for pandemic-relevant clinical research. Tailored information and initiatives to advance research literacy and maintain trust are required to support pandemic-relevant research participation and engagement.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 24-12-2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.12.23.20248793
Abstract: Working under pandemic conditions exposes health care workers (HCWs) to infection risk and psychological strain. Protecting the physical and psychological health of HCWs is a key priority. This study assessed the perceptions of European hospital HCWs of local infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on their emotional wellbeing. We performed two rounds of an international cross-sectional survey, between 31 March and 17 April 2020 via existing research networks (round 1), and between 14 May and 31 August 2020 via online convenience s ling (round 2). Main outcome measures were (1) behavioural determinants of HCW adherence with IPC procedures, (2) WHO-5 Well-Being Index, a validated scale of 0-100 reflecting emotional wellbeing. The WHO-5 was interpreted as a score below or above 50 points, a cut-off score used in previous literature to screen for depression. 2,289 HCWs (round 1: n=190, round 2: n=2,099) from 40 countries in Europe participated. Mean age of respondents was 42 (±11) years, 66% were female, 47% and 39% were medical doctors and nurses, respectively. 74% (n=1699) of HCWs were directly treating patients with COVID-19, of which 32% (n=527) reported they were fearful of caring for these patients. HCWs reported high levels of concern about COVID-19 infection risk to themselves (71%) and their family (82%) as a result of their job. 40% of HCWs considered that getting infected with COVID-19 was not within their control. This was more common among junior than senior HCWs (46% versus 38%, P value .01). Sufficient COVID-19-specific IPC training, confidence in PPE use and institutional trust were positively associated with the feeling that becoming infected with COVID-19 was within their control. Female HCWs were more likely than males to report a WHO-5 score below 50 points (aOR 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.8). In Europe, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a differential impact on those providing direct COVID-19 patient care, junior staff and women. Health facilities must be aware of these differential impacts, build trust and provide tailored support for this vital workforce during the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 11-2020
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2020-041191
Abstract: Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed many healthcare systems, which has h ered access to routine clinical care during lockdowns. Informal home care, care provided by non-healthcare professionals, increases the community’s healthcare capacity during pandemics. There is, however, limited research about the characteristics of informal home care providers and the challenges they face during such public health emergencies. A random, cross-sectional, population-based, RDD, telephone survey study was conducted to examine patterns of home care, characteristics of informal home care providers and the challenges experienced by these care providers during this pandemic. Data were collected from 22 March to 1 April 2020 in Hong Kong, China. A population representative study s le of Chinese-speaking adults (n=765) was interviewed. The study examined the characteristics of informal home care providers and self-reported health requirements of those who needed care. The study also examined providers’ self-perceived knowledge to provide routine home care as well as COVID-19 risk reduction care. Respondents were asked of their mental health status related to COVID-19. Of the respondents, 25.1% of 765 provided informal home care during the studied COVID-19 pandemic period. Among the informal home care providers, 18.4% of respondents took leave from school/work during the epidemic to provide care for the sick, fragile elderly and small children. Care providers tended to be younger aged, female and housewives. Approximately half of care providers reported additional mental strain and 37.2% reported of challenges in daily living during epidemic. Although most informal home care providers felt competent to provide routine care, 49.5% felt inadequately prepared to cope with the additional health risks of COVID-19. During public health emergencies, heavy reliance on informal home healthcare providers necessitates better understanding of their specific needs and increased government services to support informal home care.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 05-2019
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 09-12-2020
DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0243525
Abstract: The outcome of well-performed clinical research is essential for evidence-based patient management during pandemics. However, conducting clinical research amidst a pandemic requires researchers to balance clinical and research demands. We seek to understand the values, experiences, and beliefs of physicians working at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to inform clinical research planning. We aim to understand whether pandemic settings affect physician comfort with research practices, and how physician experiences shape their understanding of research in a pandemic setting. A survey tool was adapted to evaluate familiarity and comfort with research during a pandemic. A cross-sectional, online questionnaire was distributed across Canadian research networks early in the COVID-19 outbreak. The survey was administered between March 11 th and 17 th , 2020, during a time of local transmission but prior to the surge of cases. We aimed to recruit into the survey physicians in infectious disease and critical care research networks across Canada. Of the 133 physician respondents, 131 (98%) considered it important to conduct clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents were more accepting of adaptations to the research process in during a pandemic compared to in a non-pandemic setting, including conducting research with deferred consent (χ 2 = 8.941, 95% CI: -0.264, -0.085, p = 0.003), using non-identifiable observational data with a waiver of consent with a median score of 97 out of 100 (IQR: 79.25–100) vs median 87 out of 100 (IQR: 63–79) (95% CI: -12.43, 0.054, p = 0.052). The majority felt that research quality is not compromised during pandemics. Physicians consider it important to conduct research during a pandemic, highlighting the need to expedite research activities in pandemic settings. Respondents were more accepting of adaptations to the research process for research conducted during a pandemic, compared to that conducted in its absence of a pandemic.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 06-12-2021
Abstract: Primary care manages a significant proportion of healthcare in the United Kingdom and should be a key part of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic response. To assess preparedness for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic by understanding GPs’ perception of their ability to manage current and future service demand, set-up of triage processes, and training in Covid-19 infection prevention and control procedures. Cross-sectional survey of practicing GPs in the United Kingdom, with 2 rounds of data collection early in the pandemic. Online survey, scripted and hosted by medeConnect Healthcare, comprising 6 closed prompts on 7-point Likert scales, and an optional free-text component. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Free-text data were analysed thematically. One thousand two GPs completed each round 51 GPs completed free-text responses in March, and 64 in April. Quantitative data showed greatest confidence in triage of Covid-19 patients, and GPs were more confident managing current than future Covid-19 demand. GPs’ responses were more optimistic and aligned in April than March. Free-text data highlighted that GPs were concerned about lack of appropriate personal protective equipment and personal risk of Covid-19 infection in March, and unmet needs of non-Covid-19 patients in April. In both rounds, GPs expressed feeling overlooked by government and public health bodies. Guidance to support general practice clinicians to manage future waves of Covid-19 or other health emergencies must be tailored to general practice from the outset, to support clinicians to manage competing health demands, and mitigate impacts on primary care providers’ wellbeing.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 27-09-2017
DOI: 10.1111/HEX.12634
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 07-02-2022
DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0245182
Abstract: Working under pandemic conditions exposes health care workers (HCWs) to infection risk and psychological strain. A better understanding of HCWs’ experiences of following local infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures during COVID-19 is urgently needed to inform strategies for protecting the psychical and psychological health of HCWs. The objective of this study was therefore to capture the perceptions of hospital HCWs on local IPC procedures and the impact on their emotional wellbeing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Participants were recruited in two s ling rounds of an international cross-sectional survey. S ling took place between 31 March and 17 April 2020 via existing research networks and between 14 May and 31 August 2020 via online convenience s ling. Main outcome measures were behavioural determinants of HCWs’ adherence to IPC guidelines and the WHO-5 Well-Being Index, a validated scale of 0–100 reflecting emotional wellbeing. The WHO-5 was interpreted as a score below or above 50 points, a cut-off score used in previous literature to screen for depression. 2289 HCWs from 40 countries in Europe participated. Mean age was 42 (±11) years, 66% were female, 47% and 39% were medical doctors and nurses, respectively. 74% (n = 1699) of HCWs were directly treating patients with COVID-19, of which 32% (n = 527) reported they were fearful of caring for these patients. HCWs reported high levels of concern about COVID-19 infection risk to themselves (71%) and their family (82%) as a result of their job. 40% of HCWs considered that getting infected with COVID-19 was not within their control. This feeling was more common among junior than senior HCWs (46% versus 38%, P value .01). Sufficient COVID-19-specific IPC training, confidence in PPE use and institutional trust were positively associated with the feeling that becoming infected with COVID-19 was within their control. Female HCWs were more likely than males to report a WHO-5 score below 50 points (aOR 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2–1.8). In Europe, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a differential impact on those providing direct COVID-19 patient care, junior staff and women. Health facilities must be aware of these differential impacts, build trust and provide tailored support for this vital workforce during the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2020
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 16-03-2022
DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0264906
Abstract: To identify the experiences and concerns of health workers (HWs), and how they changed, throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Longitudinal, qualitative study with HWs involved in patient management or delivery of care related to COVID-19 in general practice, emergency departments and hospitals. Participants were identified through snowballing. Semi-structured telephone or video interviews were conducted between February 2020 and February 2021, audio-recorded, summarised, and transcribed. Data were analysed longitudinally using framework and thematic analysis. We conducted 105 interviews with 14 participants and identified three phases corresponding with shifts in HWs’ experiences and concerns. (1) Emergency and mobilisation phase (late winter-spring 2020), with significant rapid shifts in responsibilities, required skills, and training, and challenges in patient care. (2) Consolidation and preparation phase (summer-autumn 2020), involving gradual return to usual care and responsibilities, sense of professional development and improvement in care, and focus on learning and preparing for future. (3) Exhaustion and survival phase (autumn 2020-winter 2021), entailing return of changes in responsibilities, focus on balancing COVID-19 and non-COVID care (until becoming overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases), and concerns about longer-term impacts of unceasing pressure on health services. Participants’ perceptions of COVID-19 risk and patient ublic attitudes changed throughout the year, and tiredness and weariness turned into exhaustion. Results showed a long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK HWs’ experiences and concerns related to changes in their roles, provision of care, and personal wellbeing. Despite mobilisation in the emergency phase, and trying to learn from this, HWs’ experiences seemed to be similar or worse in the second wave partly due to many COVID-19 cases. The findings highlight the importance of supporting HWs and strengthening system-level resilience (e.g., with resources, processes) to enable them to respond to current and future demands and emergencies.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 24-06-2021
DOI: 10.1186/S12889-021-11285-8
Abstract: As COVID-19 death rates have risen and health-care systems have experienced increased demand, national testing strategies have come under scrutiny. Utilising qualitative interview data from a larger COVID-19 study, this paper provides insights into influences on and the enactment of national COVID-19 testing strategies for health care workers (HCWs) in English NHS settings during wave one of the COVID-19 pandemic (March–August 2020). Through the findings we aim to inform learning about COVID-19 testing policies and practices and to inform future pandemic diagnostic preparedness. A remote qualitative, semi-structured longitudinal interview method was employed with a purposive snowball s le of senior scientific advisors to the UK Government on COVID-19, and HCWs employed in NHS primary and secondary health care settings in England. Twenty-four interviews from 13 participants were selected from the larger project dataset using a key term search, as not all of the transcripts contained references to testing. Framework analysis was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability of patient-facing health and care technologies implementation framework (NASSS) and by normalisation process theory (NPT). Our account highlights tensions between the communication and implementation of national testing developments scientific advisor and HCW perceptions about infectiousness and uncertainties about the responsibility for testing and its implications at the local level. Consideration must be given to the implications of mass NHS staff testing, including the accuracy of information communicated to HCWs how HCWs interpret, manage, and act on testing guidance and the influence these have on health care organisations and services.
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 20-02-2023
DOI: 10.2196/44207
Abstract: An infodemic is excess information, including false or misleading information, that spreads in digital and physical environments during a public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an unprecedented global infodemic that has led to confusion about the benefits of medical and public health interventions, with substantial impact on risk-taking and health-seeking behaviors, eroding trust in health authorities and compromising the effectiveness of public health responses and policies. Standardized measures are needed to quantify the harmful impacts of the infodemic in a systematic and methodologically robust manner, as well as harmonizing highly ergent approaches currently explored for this purpose. This can serve as a foundation for a systematic, evidence-based approach to monitoring, identifying, and mitigating future infodemic harms in emergency preparedness and prevention. In this paper, we summarize the Fifth World Health Organization (WHO) Infodemic Management Conference structure, proceedings, outcomes, and proposed actions seeking to identify the interdisciplinary approaches and frameworks needed to enable the measurement of the burden of infodemics. An iterative human-centered design (HCD) approach and concept mapping were used to facilitate focused discussions and allow for the generation of actionable outcomes and recommendations. The discussions included 86 participants representing erse scientific disciplines and health authorities from 28 countries across all WHO regions, along with observers from civil society and global public health–implementing partners. A thematic map capturing the concepts matching the key contributing factors to the public health burden of infodemics was used throughout the conference to frame and contextualize discussions. Five key areas for immediate action were identified. The 5 key areas for the development of metrics to assess the burden of infodemics and associated interventions included (1) developing standardized definitions and ensuring the adoption thereof (2) improving the map of concepts influencing the burden of infodemics (3) conducting a review of evidence, tools, and data sources (4) setting up a technical working group and (5) addressing immediate priorities for postpandemic recovery and resilience building. The summary report consolidated group input toward a common vocabulary with standardized terms, concepts, study designs, measures, and tools to estimate the burden of infodemics and the effectiveness of infodemic management interventions. Standardizing measurement is the basis for documenting the burden of infodemics on health systems and population health during emergencies. Investment is needed into the development of practical, affordable, evidence-based, and systematic methods that are legally and ethically balanced for monitoring infodemics generating diagnostics, infodemic insights, and recommendations and developing interventions, action-oriented guidance, policies, support options, mechanisms, and tools for infodemic managers and emergency program managers.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2020
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Nina Gobat.