Public perceptions of the role of government and nonstate actors in responding to COVID-19

Pandemic publishing: A bibliometric review of COVID-19 research in the crisis and disaster literature

Iconic events have traditionally instigated progression in the fields of crisis and disaster science. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pressing question is how this global health emergency impacted the research agendas of our field. We reviewed contributions in ten important crisis and disaster journals in the two and a half years following the COVID-19 outbreak from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2022. Specifically, we conducted a bibliometric review using thematic mapping analysis to distill the major themes covered by the emerging COVID-19 literature within crisis and disaster science (N = 239 articles). Our results indicate that several well-known topics are applied to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as risk, crisis communication, governance, resilience and vulnerability. The pandemic also gave rise to new topics, such as citizen behavior, state power, and the business and mental health impact of crisis measures. Several studies are already looking ahead by identifying lessons for preparedness and mitigation of future pandemics. By taking stock of the surge of COVID-19 studies while this academic literature is still taking shape, this review sets the stage for future contributions to the crisis and disaster literatures. It provides valuable lessons for what topics are studied and what themes need more attention. The COVID-19 pandemic is destined to become an iconic event for our literature that not only strengthens and deepens existing debates, but also clearly offers the opportunity to draw in new perspectives and broaden the horizon of crisis and disaster science.

Characterising trusted spokespeople in noncommunicable disease prevention: A systematic scoping review

Noncommunicable diseases (NCD) are an increasing global threat. Utilising public policy to address NCDs can reduce incidence and prevalence. However, NCD-relevant public policy action is minimal in many countries as changing public policy is difficult and multifactorial. Two factors that may influence this process is the message people receive and the messenger delivering it. To date, much health communication research has focused on message content, with limited research on messengers that are trusted by policymakers and the public to communicate NCD matters. We aimed to review the literature to characterise who the public and policymakers consider to be trustworthy and/or credible for NCD messaging, and why this might be the case. Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology guided the review. A systematic search of three databases up to June 2021 combined with hand searching of review reference lists was undertaken. Nineteen articles were included. Data extraction focused on study design, issue being influenced, spokesperson studied, and measures of trust. Results showed health professionals were the most-frequently trusted sources of information. Other spokespeople, such as government sources or religious leaders, were only trustworthy in some contexts, and even distrusted in others. Reasons why spokespeople were trusted included technical expertise, strategic engagement with stakeholders, and reputation. However, we also found the nature of trust and credibility of spokespeople is dependent on the studied population and context. Overall, characteristics of influential messengers were nonspecific. Thus, trusted messengers and their characteristics in NCD-messaging must be better understood to develop and maintain the trust of the public and policymakers.

Public perceptions of the role of government and nonstate actors in responding to COVID-19

In this article, we examine public perceptions of the importance of different levels of government and of nongovernmental entities in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. By analyzing the case of COVID-19, we illuminate patterns that may be helpful for understanding public perceptions of the response to a broader range of crises, including the impacts of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, wildfires, and other hazards. We contribute to the public policy literature on public perceptions of government response to crises and expand it to include consideration of the role of nonstate actors. Drawing on a representative survey of 1200 registered voters in Texas, we find that individuals are more likely to view government as extremely important to respond to the pandemic than nonstate actors. We find that perceptions of the role of state and nonstate actors are shaped by risk perception, political ideology and religion, gender, and race/ethnicity. We do not find evidence that direct impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic consistently shape perceptions of the role of state and nonstate actors.