Elena Savoia1, Leesa Lin1, Gaya M Gamhewage1. 1. Elena Savoia is with the Department of Biostatistics and Emergency Preparedness, Research, Evaluation, and Practice Program, Division of Policy Translation and Leadership Development, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. Leesa Lin is with the Emergency Preparedness, Research, Evaluation, and Practice Program, Division of Policy Translation and Leadership Development, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Gaya Gamhewage is with Interventions and Guidance, Expert Networks and Interventions Unit, World Health Organization Health Emergencies Programme, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To articulate a conceptual framework in support of evaluation activities in emergency risk communications (ERC). METHODS: The framework proposed is based on a systematic review of the scientific literature (2001-2016) combined with data derived from a series of semistructured interviews with experts and practitioners in ERC, and it is designed to support local, national, and international public health organizations in implementing evaluation studies in ERC. RESULTS: We identified a list of ERC outcomes from the full-text review of 152 articles and categorized these into 3 groups, depending upon the level at which the outcome was measured: (1) information environment, (2) population, and (3) public health system. We analyzed interviewees' data from 18 interviews to identify practices and processes related to the effectiveness of ERC and included these as key structural components and processes in the developed evaluation framework. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and public health practitioners interested in the evaluation of ERC can use the conceptual framework described in this article to guide the development of evaluation studies and methods for assessing communication outcomes related to public health emergencies.
OBJECTIVES: To articulate a conceptual framework in support of evaluation activities in emergency risk communications (ERC). METHODS: The framework proposed is based on a systematic review of the scientific literature (2001-2016) combined with data derived from a series of semistructured interviews with experts and practitioners in ERC, and it is designed to support local, national, and international public health organizations in implementing evaluation studies in ERC. RESULTS: We identified a list of ERC outcomes from the full-text review of 152 articles and categorized these into 3 groups, depending upon the level at which the outcome was measured: (1) information environment, (2) population, and (3) public health system. We analyzed interviewees' data from 18 interviews to identify practices and processes related to the effectiveness of ERC and included these as key structural components and processes in the developed evaluation framework. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and public health practitioners interested in the evaluation of ERC can use the conceptual framework described in this article to guide the development of evaluation studies and methods for assessing communication outcomes related to public health emergencies.
Authors: David P Eisenman; Kristina M Cordasco; Steve Asch; Joya F Golden; Deborah Glik Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-04-05 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Shlomi Codish; Lena Novack; Jacob Dreiher; Leonid Barski; Alan Jotkowitz; Lior Zeller; Victor Novack Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Anne M Kavanagh; Rebecca J Bentley; Kate E Mason; Jodie McVernon; Sylvia Petrony; James Fielding; Anthony D LaMontagne; David M Studdert Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Lisa P Lagassé; Rajiv N Rimal; Katherine C Smith; J Douglas Storey; Elizabeth Rhoades; Daniel J Barnett; Saad B Omer; Jonathan Links Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elena Savoia; Michael A Stoto; Rahul Gupta; Nasandra Wright; Kasisomayajula Viswanath Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 3.295