Mindfulness and risk communication during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Communication in Healthcare Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-14 DOI:10.1080/17538068.2023.2223430
Caitlin Wills, Steven Shields
{"title":"Mindfulness and risk communication during the Covid-19 pandemic.","authors":"Caitlin Wills, Steven Shields","doi":"10.1080/17538068.2023.2223430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The outbreak of the novel coronavirus (Covid-19) in spring 2020 offered an opportunity to examine the impact of mindfulness theory as governments responded. Mindful organizations do not rely on routine ways and are open to new ideas and perspectives in problem solving. Mindfulness involves analyzing new situations and openness to information. This study examines how well mindful planning, conducted in 2006 by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), matched public responses to the 2020 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Public meetings were held in 2006 to determine acceptability of a series of control measures such as altering work schedules and cancelling large gatherings in the case of a novel pandemic. In 2020, an online survey was conducted of 803 participants during initial implementation of the measures and compared to responses from 2006 to ascertain the effectiveness of mindful planning.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Chi-square analysis showed no significant differences on acceptance of five community control measures across geographic regions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Failure of officials to consider the insights of mindful planning efforts resulted in mindless reactions. These results highlight how vital it is for organizations dealing with high-risk public health issues to follow a mindful approach throughout to reduce negative public health impact. This study also fills a gap in the research on mindfulness by analyzing the outcome of mindful planning in real-life. Limitations of the study include non-random online sampling, timeliness of the data gathered at an early stage of pandemic spread and lack of comparable gendered demographic variables.</p>","PeriodicalId":38052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":"68-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2023.2223430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The outbreak of the novel coronavirus (Covid-19) in spring 2020 offered an opportunity to examine the impact of mindfulness theory as governments responded. Mindful organizations do not rely on routine ways and are open to new ideas and perspectives in problem solving. Mindfulness involves analyzing new situations and openness to information. This study examines how well mindful planning, conducted in 2006 by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), matched public responses to the 2020 pandemic.

Method: Public meetings were held in 2006 to determine acceptability of a series of control measures such as altering work schedules and cancelling large gatherings in the case of a novel pandemic. In 2020, an online survey was conducted of 803 participants during initial implementation of the measures and compared to responses from 2006 to ascertain the effectiveness of mindful planning.

Results: Chi-square analysis showed no significant differences on acceptance of five community control measures across geographic regions.

Conclusions: Failure of officials to consider the insights of mindful planning efforts resulted in mindless reactions. These results highlight how vital it is for organizations dealing with high-risk public health issues to follow a mindful approach throughout to reduce negative public health impact. This study also fills a gap in the research on mindfulness by analyzing the outcome of mindful planning in real-life. Limitations of the study include non-random online sampling, timeliness of the data gathered at an early stage of pandemic spread and lack of comparable gendered demographic variables.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在 Covid-19 大流行期间的心态和风险交流。
背景:2020 年春季爆发的新型冠状病毒(Covid-19)为研究正念理论对政府应对措施的影响提供了一个机会。正念组织不依赖常规方法,在解决问题时对新想法和新观点持开放态度。正念涉及对新情况的分析和对信息的开放。本研究探讨了美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)在 2006 年开展的心智规划与公众对 2020 年大流行病的反应的匹配程度:方法:2006 年举行了公众会议,以确定一系列控制措施的可接受性,如在发生新型大流行病时改变工作安排和取消大型集会。2020 年,在初步实施这些措施期间,对 803 名参与者进行了在线调查,并与 2006 年的答复进行了比较,以确定用心规划的有效性:结果:卡方分析表明,不同地区对五项社区控制措施的接受程度没有明显差异:结论:官员们没有考虑到用心规划工作所带来的启示,导致了无意识的反应。这些结果突出表明,处理高风险公共卫生问题的组织必须自始至终遵循全盘考虑的方法,以减少对公共卫生的负面影响。本研究还通过分析现实生活中正念规划的结果,填补了正念研究的空白。本研究的局限性包括:非随机在线抽样、在大流行病传播早期收集数据的及时性以及缺乏可比的性别人口变量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Communication in Healthcare
Journal of Communication in Healthcare Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊最新文献
Open access to pathology reports: potential harms and proposed solutions. The promise of AI in healthcare: transforming communication and decision-making for patients. Doctor on call: physician smartphone use during medical consultations. Public health professionals' views on climate change, advocacy, and health. Adaptation in communication technology utilization: caring for individuals with chronic conditions in South Asia during the Covid-19 pandemic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1