How to Make Health and Risk Communication on Social Media More “Social” During COVID-19

References

• Tell Me [homepage on the Internet]. Available from: https://www.tellmeproject.eu/. Accessed July 7, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• ASSET. [homepage on the Internet]. Available from: http://www.asset-scienceinsociety.eu/. Accessed July 7, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Shir-Raz Y, Hayek S, Aassaraf S, Lowenstein L. Despite awareness of recommendations, why do health care workers not immunize pregnant women? Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(4):436–439. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2016.11.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Walter N, Green MS. Health care workers–part of the system or part of the public? Ambivalent risk perception in health care workers. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(8):829–833. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2014.04.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Shir-Raz Y, Hayek S, Sassoni-Bar Lev O. What does the public know about Ebola? The public’s risk perceptions regarding the current Ebola outbreak in an as-yet unaffected country. Am J Infect Control. 2015;43(7):669–675. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2015.03.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Walter N, Shir-Raz Y. The “new public” and the “good ol’ press”: evaluating online news sources during the 2013 polio outbreak in Israel. Health Commun. 2017;32(2):169–179. doi:10.1080/10410236.2015.1110224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Shir-Raz Y. Science vs. fear: the Ebola quarantine debate as a case study that reveals how the public perceives risk. J Risk Res. 2017;20(5):611–633. doi:10.1080/13669877.2015.1100659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Stolero N, Mordini E, Billingsley M, James JJ, Green MS. Emerging infectious disease (EID) communication during the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak: literature review (2009–2013) of the methodology used for EID communication analysis. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(2):199–206. doi:10.1017/dmp.2014.126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Walter N, Shir-Raz Y, Green MS. Voluntary or mandatory? The valence framing effect of attitudes regarding HPV vaccination. J Health Commun. 2015;20(11):1287–1293. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1018642
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Shir-Raz Y, Green MS. Why do parents who usually vaccinate their children hesitate or refuse? General good vs. individual risk. J Risk Res. 2016;19(4):405–424. doi:10.1080/13669877.2014.983947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Shir-Raz Y. Risk Communication and Infectious Diseases in an Age of Digital Media. London and New York: Routledge; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Shir-Raz Y, Walter N, et al. The public sphere in emerging infectious disease communication: recipient or active and vocal partner? Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(4):447–458. doi:10.1017/dmp.2015.31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Diamant A, Hijazi R, Mesch GS. Correcting misinformation by health organizations during measles outbreaks: a controlled experiment. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0209505. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manheim D, Gesser-Edelsburg A. The structure of tweets about vaccine safety between health organizations, experts and the public: analyzing risk communication conversations. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2020;1–25. doi:10.1017/dmp.2020.404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratzan SC, Moritsugu KP. Ebola crisis-communication chaos we can avoid. J Health Commun. 2014;19(11):1213–1215. doi:10.1080/10810730.2014.977680
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrams EM, Greenhawt M. Risk communication during COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(6):1791–1794. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2020.04.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janis IL. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Schwenk CR. Strategic decision making. J Manage. 1995;21(3):471–493. doi:10.1177/014920639502100304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Klein G. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol. 2009;64(6):515–526. doi:10.1037/a0016755
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal U, Hart P. Experts and decision makers in crisis situations. Knowledge. 1991;12(4):350–372. doi:10.1177/107554709101200402
   Google Scholar
• Turner ME, Pratkanis AR. Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organ Behav Hum. 1998;73(2):105–115. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houghton DP. Invading and occupying Iraq: some insights from political psychology. Peace Confl. 2008;14(2):169–192. doi:10.1080/10781910802017297
   Google Scholar
• Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors. The report of the Iraq inquiry. GOV.UK. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-The-iraq-inquiry. July 6, 2016. AccessedNovember 10, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Hoever IJ, van Knippenberg D, van Ginkel WP, Barkema HG. Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. J Appl Psychol. 2012;97(5):982–996. doi:10.1037/a0029159
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CKW, Homan AC. Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Am J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(6):1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
   Google Scholar
• Schulz-Hardt S, Brodbeck FC, Mojzisch A, Kerschreiter R, Frey D. Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;91(6):1080–1093. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron R, Kerr N. Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Garner JT, Ragland JP. Tabling, discussing, and giving in: dissent in workgroups. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract. 2019;23(1):57–74. doi:10.1037/gdn0000098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Dreu CKW, West MA. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. Am J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(6):1191–1201. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191
   Google Scholar
• Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: the moderating role of managerial discretion. Adm Sci Q. 1990;35(3):484–503. doi:10.2307/2393314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dijk H, van Engen ML, van Knippenberg D. Defying conventional wisdom: a meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organ Behav Hum. 2012;119(1):38–53. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrick RP. Debiasing. In: Koehler DJ, Harvey N, editors. Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Stohl C. Organizational Communication: Connectedness in Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelissen J. Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Scoble R, Israel S. Naked Conversations: How Blogs are Changing the Way Businesses Talk to Customers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• McGuire D, Cunningham JEA, Reynolds K, Matthews-Smith G. Beating the virus: an examination of the crisis communication approach taken by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern during the Covid-19 pandemic. Hum Resour Dev Int. 2020;23(4):361–379. doi:10.1080/13678868.2020.1779543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson S. Three reasons why Jacinda Ardern’s coronavirus response has been a masterclass in crisis leadership. The Conversation; April 6, 2020. Available from: https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-why-jacinda-arderns-coronavirus-response-has-been-a-masterclass-in-crisis-leadership-135541. Accessed November 20, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Watson VB. Five Coronavirus Success Stories Different, but the Same. Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney P, Kwiatkowski R. How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun. 2017;3(1):37. doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Palenchar MJ, Heath RL. Another part of the risk communication model: analysis of communication processes and message content. J Public Relat Res. 2002;14(2):127–158. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1402_3
   Google Scholar
• Slovic P. The construction of preference. Am Psychol. 1995;50(5):364–371. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frewer L, Hunt S, Brennan M, Kuznesof S, Ness M, Ritson C. The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. J Risk Res. 2003;6(1):75–85. doi:10.1080/1366987032000047815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wulfhorst E, Morgan D. CDC says returning Ebola medical workers should not be quarantined. Reuters. Available from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/us-health-ebola-usa-newyork-idUSKBN0IG12920141028. October 27, 2014. AccessedNovember 10, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Zernike K, Fitzsimmons EG. Threat of lawsuit could test maine’s quarantine policy. The New York Times. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/us/kaci-hickox-nurse-under-ebola-quarantine-threatens-lawsuit.html?_r=0. October 29, 2014. AccessedNovember 10, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Sandman P. Ebola in the U.S. (so far): the public health establishment and the quarantine debate. The Peter M. Sandman Risk Communication Website; November 15, 2014. Available from: http://www.psandman.com/col/Ebola-4.htm. Accessed May 14, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Howell T. Airborne Ebola spread can’t be ruled out, docs from infamous ‘Hot Zone’ episode say. The Washington Times; 2014. Available from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/16/airborne-ebola-outbreak-in-monkeys-raises-possibil/?page=all. Accessed August 18, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Dalgard DW, Hardy RJ, Pearson SL, et al. Combined simian hemorrhagic fever and Ebola virus infection in cynomolgus monkeys. Lab Anim Sci. 1992;42(2):152–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weingartl HM, Embury-Hyatt C, Nfon C, Leung A, Smith G, Kobinger G. Transmission of Ebola virus from pigs to non-human primates. Sci Rep. 2012;2(1):811. doi:10.1038/srep00811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Modes of Transmission of Virus Causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC Precaution Recommendations. Scientific Brief.. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Schwenk CR. Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum. 1990;47(1):161–176. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(90)90051-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jetten J, Hornsey MJ. Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Difference and Defiance. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Levine JM, Marques JM. Norm violators as threats and opportunities: the many faces of deviance in groups. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2016;19(5):545–552. doi:10.1177/1368430216657415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews L, Blanchard S. Now 12,000 scientists and medics have signed anti-lockdown petition that urges officials to let Covid-19 spread among young and healthy people. Daily Mail. 2020 October 8.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett P, Calman K, Curtis S, Fischbacher-Smith D. Risk Communication and Public Health. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy MF, Buede D. Does the accuracy of expert judgment comply with common sense: caveat emptor. Manag Decis. 2009;47(3):454–469. doi:10.1108/00251740910946714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregg AP, Mahadevan N, Sedikides C. The SPOT effect: people spontaneously prefer their own theories. Q J Exp Psychol. 2017;70(6):996–1010. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1099162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez O. Can experts be trusted and what can be done about it? Insights from the biases and heuristics literature. In: Alemanno A, Sibony AL, editors. Nudge and the Law: A European Perspective. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing; 2017:115–138.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen D, Carter P. WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”. BMJ. 2010;340(7759):1274–1279. doi:10.1136/bmj.c2912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein H. Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies!. New York: The New York Review of Books; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 2004;24(2):311–322. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon HA. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. 4th ed. New York: Free Press; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney P, Heikkila T. Comparison of theories of the policy process. In: Weible CM, Sabatier PA, editors. Theories of the Policy Process. 4th ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2017:301–327.
   Google Scholar
• Kam CD. Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behav. 2005;27(2):163–182. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-1764-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein G. Sources of Power: How people Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev. 2001;108(4):814–834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intutive judgment. In: Gilovich T, Griff D, Kahneman D, editors. Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002:49–81.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne B. Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult (Lond). 2001;10(4):445–481. doi:10.1080/09505430120093586
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smedley J, Poole J, Waclawski E, et al. Influenza immunisation: attitudes and beliefs of UK healthcare workers. Occup Environ Med. 2007;64(4):223–227. doi:10.1136/oem.2005.023564
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weingarten S, Riedinger M, Bolton LB, Miles P, Ault M, Barriers to influenza vaccine acceptance. A survey of physicians and nurses. Am J Infect Control. 1989;17(4):202–207. doi:10.1016/0196-6553(89)90129-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis BC, Wortley P. Nurses’ attitudes and beliefs about influenza and the influenza vaccine: a summary of focus groups in Alabama and Michigan. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(1):20–24. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2006.07.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park S, Han S, Kim J, et al. COVID-19 discourse on Twitter in four asian countries: case study of risk communication. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e23272. doi:10.2196/23272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sleigh J, Amann J, Schneider M, Vayena E. Qualitative analysis of visual risk communication on twitter during the Covid-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):810. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10851-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton J, Renshaw SL, Butts CT. The first 60 days: American public health agencies’ social media strategies in the emerging COVID-19 pandemic. Health Secur. 2020;18(6):454–460. doi:10.1089/hs.2020.0105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosyalı H, Tosyalı F. Risk communication and social media: COVID-19 pandemic planning and response in Turkey. In: Sarı G, editor. Handbook of Research on Representing Health and Medicine in Modern Media. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2021:150–171.
   Google Scholar
• Kouzy R, Abi Jaoude J, Kraitem A, et al. Coronavirus goes viral: quantifying the COVID-19 misinformation epidemic on Twitter. Cureus. 2020;12(3):e7255–e7255. doi:10.7759/cureus.7255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tasnim S, Hossain MM, Mazumder H. Impact of rumors and misinformation on COVID-19 in social media. J Prev Med Public Health. 2020;53(3):171–174. doi:10.3961/jpmph.20.094
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sharma K, Seo S, Meng C, Rambhatla S, Liu Y. COVID-19 on social media: analyzing misinformation in Twitter conversations; 2020. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.12309. Accessed August 18, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. WHO ad-hoc technical consultation on managing the COVID-19 infodemic 7–8 April 2020. Geneva; September 15, 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240010314. Accessed November 10, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Baxendale S, O’Toole A. Epilepsy myths: alive and foaming in the 21st century. Epilepsy Behav. 2007;11(2):192–196. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2007.04.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manyibe EO. Top ten cancer myths. J Appl Rehabil Couns. 2006;37(2):36.
   Google Scholar
• Miller K. Book review: girls’ violence: myths and realities. Youth Violence Juv Justice. 2007;5(3):207–210. doi:10.1177/1541204006296166
   Google Scholar
• Nyhan B, Reifler J. Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine. 2015;33(3):459–464. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2014;133(4):e835–e842. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2365
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purnat TD, Vacca P, Czerniak, C, Ball S, Burzo S. Zecchin T, et al. Infodemic signal detection during the COVID-19 pandemic: development of methodology for identifying potential information voids in online conversations. JMIR Infodemiology. 2021;1(1):e30971. doi:10.2196/30971
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 4th virtual WHO infodemic management conference: advances in social listening for public health; 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2021/05/04/default-calendar/4th-virtual-who-infodemic-management-conference-advances-in-social-listening-for-public-health. Accessed July 22, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Harries D. ‘Infodemic’ - the fight against fake coronavirus news. China Global Television Network. 2020 February 7.
   Google Scholar
• Richtel MWHO. Fights a Pandemic besides coronavirus: an ‘infodemic’. The New York Times. 2020 February 6.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas T. WHO says fake coronavirus claims causing ‘infodemic’. BBC. 2020 February 20.
   Google Scholar
• Niemiec E. COVID-19 and misinformation: is censorship of social media a remedy to the spread of medical misinformation? EMBO Rep. 2020;21(11):e51420–e51420. doi:10.15252/embr.202051420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson HJ. Stuck: How Vaccine Rumors Start – And Why They Don’t Go Away. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The Psychology of Attitudes. New York: Academic Press; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• McGuire WJ. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E, editors. The Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. 3. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1969:136–314.
   Google Scholar
• Petty RE, DeSteno D, Rucker DD. The role of affect in attitude change. In: Forgas JP, editor. Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001:212–233.
   Google Scholar
• Biener L. Adult and youth response to the Massachusetts anti-tobacco television campaign. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2000;6(3):40–44. doi:10.1097/00124784-200006030-00007
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biener L, Reimer RL, Wakefield M, Szczypka G, Rigotti NA, Connolly G. Impact of smoking cessation aids and mass media among recent quitters. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(3):217–224. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.10.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillard JP, Nabi RL. The persuasive influence of emotion in cancer prevention and detection messages. J Commun. 2006;56(s1):S123–S139. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00286.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillard JP, Peck E. Affect and persuasion: emotional responses to public service announcements. Commun Res. 2000;27(4):461–495. doi:10.1177/009365000027004003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pechmann C, Reibling ET. Antismoking advertisements for youths: an independent evaluation of health, counter-industry, and industry approaches. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(5):906–913. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.057273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A. Using narrative evidence to convey health information on social media: the case of COVID-19. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e24948. doi:10.2196/24948
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreuter MW, Green MC, Cappella JN, et al. Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: a framework to guide research and application. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33(3):221–235. doi:10.1007/BF02879904
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A. Drama as a rhetorically effective health communication strategy: risks and benefits. In: Kim DK, Singhal A, Kreps GL, editors. Global Health Communication Strategies in the 21st Century: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Group; 2014:134–150.
   Google Scholar
• Green MC, Brock TC. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79(5):701–721. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diekman AB, Gardner WL, McDonald M. Love means never having to be carreful: the relationship between reading romance novels and safe sex behavior. Psychol Women Q. 2000;24(2):179–188. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00199.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Singhal A. Enhancing the persuasive influence of entertainment-education events: rhetorical and aesthetic strategies for constructing narratives. Crit Arts. 2013;27(1):56–74. doi:10.1080/02560046.2013.766973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopfer S, Clippard JR. College women’s HPV vaccine decision narratives. Qual Health Res. 2011;21(2):262–277. doi:10.1177/1049732310383868
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshioka T, Maeda Y. COVID-19 stigma induced by local government and media reporting in Japan: it’s time to reconsider risk communication lessons from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. J Epidemiol. 2020;30(8):372–373. doi:10.2188/jea.JE20200247
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nutbeam D. COVID-19: lessons in risk communication and public trust. Public Health Res Pract. 2020;30(2). doi:10.17061/phrp3022006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashkenazi S. Scientists against government guidelines: there is no medical reason for the aggravation of the subject of masks. Globes. 2020 April 27.
   Google Scholar
• Filut A. Board of the association of public health physicians: the charge to wear a mask may harm the eradication of the corona. Calcalist. 2020 April 2.
   Google Scholar
• MacIntyre CR, Chughtai AA. Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings. BMJ. 2015;350(apr09 1):h694. doi:10.1136/bmj.h694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Asselt MBA, Vos E. Wrestling with uncertain risks: EU regulation of GMOs and the uncertainty paradox. J Risk Res. 2008;11(1–2):281–300. doi:10.1080/13669870801990806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Asselt MBA, Vos E, Rooijackers B. Science, knowledge and uncertainty in EU risk regulation. In: Everson M, Vos E, editors. Uncertain Risks Regulated. Oxon, OX: Routledge-Cavendish; 2009:359–388.
   Google Scholar
• Fox T. The role of uncertainty intolerance in European risk governance. Paper presented at: Risk Research Symposium; 2009; King’s College London.
   Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Hijazi R. When politics meets pandemic: how Prime Minister Netanyahu and a small team communicated health and risk information to the Israeli public during the early stages of COVID-19. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020;13:2985–3002. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S280952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandman P, Lanard J. Explaining and proclaiming uncertainty: risk communication lessons from Germany’s E. coli outbreak; August 14, 2011. Available from: http://www.psandman.com/col/GermanEcoli.htm. Accessed November 23, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lofstedt RE. How can we make food risk communication better: where are we and where are we going? J Risk Res. 2006;9(8):869–890. doi:10.1080/13669870601065585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porat T, Nyrup R, Calvo RA, Paudyal P, Ford E. Public health and risk communication during COVID-19-enhancing psychological needs to promote sustainable behavior change. Front Public Health. 2020;8:573397. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.573397
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin A. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London and New York: Routledge; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Guerrini CJ, Majumder MA, Lewellyn MJ, McGuire AL. Citizen science, public policy. Science. 2018;361(6398):134–136. doi:10.1126/science.aar8379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for Human Environments. Public Science Project (PSP). The City University of New York; 2020. Available from: https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Centers-and-Institutes/Center-for-Human-Environments/Research-Sub-Groups/Public-Science-Project-(PSP). Accessed November 10, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Open Government Partnership. Civil society engagement; 2020. Available from: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/civil-society-engagement/. Accessed November 10, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Motion A. It’s personal. Chemistry World; 2020. Available from: https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/the-citizen-scientists-sharing-their-own-data-during-The-covid-19-pandemic/4011793.article. Accessed November 10, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Chesbrough HW. Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Zoref L. Mindsharing: The Art of Crowdsourcing Everything. New York: Penguin Publishing Group; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Global Development. Crowdsourcing reveals life-saving potential in global health research. The Guardian. 2012 August 15.
   Google Scholar
• Wiggins A, Wilbanks J. The rise of citizen science in health and biomedical research. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19(8):3–14. doi:10.1080/15265161.2019.1619859
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CDC. Vaccination rates among children in kindergarten – United States, 2012–2013 school year. MMWR. 2013;62(30):607–612.
   Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Walter N, Shir-Raz Y, Sassoni Bar-Lev O, Rosenblat S. The behind-The-scenes activity of parental decision-making discourse regarding childhood vaccination. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(3):267–271. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2016.10.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velan B, Boyko V, Lerner-Geva L, Ziv A, Yagar Y, Kaplan G. Individualism, acceptance and differentiation as attitude traits in the public’s response to vaccination. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2012;8(9):1272–1282. doi:10.4161/hv.21183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith RD. Responding to global infectious disease outbreaks: lessons from SARS on the role of risk perception, communication and management. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(12):3113–3123. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, et al. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988;8(2):177–187. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickson D. The Case for a ‘Deficit Model’ of Science Communication. SciDevNet; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ, Glassman B. One size does not fit all: the case for tailoring print materials. Ann Behav Med. 1999;21(4):276–283. doi:10.1007/bf02895958
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee NR, Kotler P. Social Marketing Influencing Behaviors for Good. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 1st WHO infodemic manager training; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/risk-communication/infodemic-management/1st-who-training-in-infodemic-management. Accessed August 18, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Call for applicants for 2nd WHO training in infodemic management; 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/call-for-applicants-for-2nd-who-training-in-infodemic-management. Accessed August 18, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Assessment Report of the Global Vaccine Action Plan. Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Kincaid DL. The convergence model of communication. Papers of the East-West Communication Institute;no 18; 1979. Available from: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/48094. Accessed July 22, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers EM, Kincaid DL. Communications Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research. New York: The Free Press; 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks LA, Manias E, Bloomer MJ. Culturally sensitive communication in healthcare: a concept analysis. Collegian. 2019;26(3):383–391. doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2018.09.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiederman S. Improving communication in a diverse healthcare environment. Healthc Financ Manage. 1996;50(11):72,74–75.
   Google Scholar
• Dutta-Bergman MJ. Theory and practice in health communication campaigns: a critical interrogation. Health Commun. 2005;18(2):103–122. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1802_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dutta MJ. Communicating Health: A Culture-Centered Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Huo J, Desai R, Hong Y-R, Turner K, Mainous AG 3rd, Bian J. Use of social media in health communication: findings from the health information national trends survey 2013, 2014, and 2017. Cancer Control. 2019;26(1):1073274819841442. doi:10.1177/1073274819841442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty J. Masking disagreement among experts. Episteme. 2006;3(1–2):52–67. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.52
   Google Scholar
• Lavazza A, Farina M. The role of experts in the Covid-19 pandemic and the limits of their epistemic authority in democracy. Front Public Health. 2020;8:356. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesser-Edelsburg A, Zemach M, Hijazi R. Who are the “real” experts? The debate surrounding COVID-19 health risk management: an Israeli Case Study. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:2553–2569. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S311334
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar