Ebola in the United States

Lindblad, Robert; Fiky, Ashrafmbbch El; Zajdowicz, Thad

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2014.12.012

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the articles reviewed [1, 9, 14, 15, 18, 23, 26, 31, 36, 38, 45, 59–61, 64, 68, 69, 71, 74, 78, 79, 83, 85, 86, 89, 92, 93, 97, 99, 105, 112–116] a consensus narrative could be constructed for the EVD outbreak (see Table 2, S1 Table for details). It is important to note that we do not attempt to present the narrative as more than what can be gleaned from the collection of scored review articles.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting academic and lay press print coverage of the 2013-2016 Ebola Virus Disease outbreak

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under a traditional paradigm, only those with the expected background knowledge consume academic literature. The lay press, as well as government and non-government agencies, play a complementary role of extracting findings of high interest or importance and translating them for general viewing. The need for accurate reporting and public advising is paramount when attempting to tackle epidemic outbreaks through behavior change. Yet, public trust in media outlets is at a historic low. The Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model for media reporting on public health emergencies was established in 2005 and has subsequently been used to analyze media reporting on outbreaks of influenza and measles as well as smoking habits and medication compliance. However, no media analysis had yet been performed on the 2013–2016 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak. This study compared the EVD information relayed by lay press sources with general review articles in the academic literature through a mixed-methods analysis. These findings suggest that comprehensive review articles could not serve as a source to clarify and contextualize the uncertainties around the EVD outbreak, perhaps due to adherence to technical accuracy at the expense of clarity within the context of outbreak conditions. This finding does not imply inferiority of the academic literature, nor does it draw direct causation between confusion in review articles and public misunderstanding. Given the erosion of the barriers siloing academia, combined with the demands of today’s fast-paced media environment, contemporary researchers should realize that no study is outside the public forum and to therefore consider shifting the paradigm to take personal responsibility in the process of accurately translating their scientific words into public policy actions to best serve as a source of clarity.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting academic and lay press print coverage of the 2013-2016 Ebola Virus Disease outbreak

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In more recent times, the global spread of HIV-1, outbreaks related to avian influenza, and the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome, to name a few, profoundly illustrate how an infection can spread worldwide in a very rapid fashion (Table I). 1 In this issue of the Journal, Kampmann et al 2 and Lindblad et al 3 describe the ongoing Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak that is currently ravaging West Africa, and Petidemange et al 4 describe how the immune system might be promoting the viral spread and immunopathology of chikungunya virus (CHIKV) infection.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of humanized mAbs targeting Ebola virus and convalescent plasma from EVD survivors, as well as new antivirals, are being investigated for the treatment of those with EVD. 3 Three clinical trials are expected to begin in Ebola treatment centers in Guinea and Liberia in early 2015. This has raised many issues regarding optimal clinical trial design and the ethics of not making a potentially lifesaving treatment available immediately.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%