• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

如何在核或辐射事件中向公众通报防护行动:一项系统综述。

How to inform the public about protective actions in a nuclear or radiological incident: a systematic review.

作者信息

Gauntlett Louis, Amlôt Richard, Rubin G James

机构信息

Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK; Emergency Response Department Science & Technology, Public Health England, Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK.

Emergency Response Department Science & Technology, Public Health England, Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK.

出版信息

Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Jan;6(1):72-80. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30173-1. Epub 2018 Oct 16.

DOI:10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30173-1
PMID:30340985
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019556/
Abstract

Studying how the public behaves after a nuclear emergency will help to assess overall morbidity and mortality. Pre-event education might help to shape behaviour, but how best to engage people with emergency communications for low likelihood, high-impact events is unknown. We did a systematic review to identify factors that predict behaviour in preparation for a nuclear incident, factors that predict behaviour in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear incident, and preferences among members of the public for information designed to educate them about which actions to take in the event of a nuclear incident. In general preparedness, behaviour was predicted by factors including perceived coping effectiveness and having children, among others, but absence of preparedness was attributed to fatalistic attitudes. Importantly, for pre-incident communications to be accepted and recommendations adhered to, the source had to be trusted and perceived to be credible. However, it is notable that family needs, such as picking up children from school, were a stronger predictor of behaviour in a nuclear emergency than communicated directives from authorities. If pre-incident education about nuclear incidents is to be used, several factors-including the source and method of communication, the content, and format of messaging-might increase public engagement with messages and promote the uptake of protective behaviours in a radiation event.

摘要

研究公众在核紧急情况后的行为将有助于评估总体发病率和死亡率。事件发生前的教育可能有助于塑造行为,但对于低概率、高影响事件,如何以最佳方式让人们参与应急通信尚不清楚。我们进行了一项系统综述,以确定预测核事件准备行为的因素、预测核事件刚发生后行为的因素,以及公众对旨在教育他们在核事件发生时应采取何种行动的信息的偏好。在一般准备方面,行为由包括感知应对效果和有孩子等因素预测,但缺乏准备归因于宿命论态度。重要的是,要使事件发生前的通信被接受并使建议得到遵守,信息来源必须被信任并被认为可信。然而,值得注意的是,在核紧急情况下,诸如从学校接孩子等家庭需求比当局传达的指令更能预测行为。如果要利用核事件发生前的教育,包括通信来源和方法、信息内容和形式等几个因素可能会增加公众对信息的参与度,并促进在辐射事件中采取保护行为。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5980/10019556/d412be945988/gr1_lrg.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5980/10019556/d412be945988/gr1_lrg.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5980/10019556/d412be945988/gr1_lrg.jpg

相似文献

1
How to inform the public about protective actions in a nuclear or radiological incident: a systematic review.如何在核或辐射事件中向公众通报防护行动:一项系统综述。
Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Jan;6(1):72-80. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30173-1. Epub 2018 Oct 16.
2
Emergency Response to Radiological Releases: Have We Communicated Effectively to the First Responder Communities to Prepare Them to Safely Manage These Incidents?放射性物质释放的应急响应:我们是否已与应急响应人员群体进行了有效沟通,使其做好安全应对这些事件的准备?
Health Phys. 2018 Feb;114(2):208-213. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000757.
3
Protecting people against radiation exposure in the event of a radiological attack. A report of The International Commission on Radiological Protection.在发生放射性袭击时保护人们免受辐射照射。国际放射防护委员会的一份报告。
Ann ICRP. 2005;35(1):1-110, iii-iv. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2005.01.001.
4
[Organization of the nuclear emergency plan].[核应急预案的组织架构]
Verh K Acad Geneeskd Belg. 2005;67(5-6):337-40.
5
NCRP 53RD Annual Meeting, Assessment of National Efforts in Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear Terrorism: Communication, Education, and Public Information Session Q&A.美国国家辐射防护与测量委员会第53届年会,核恐怖主义应急准备国家工作评估:沟通、教育与公众信息环节问答
Health Phys. 2018 Feb;114(2):218-224. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000779.
6
Risk communication and radiological/nuclear terrorism: a strategic view.风险沟通与放射/核恐怖主义:战略视角。
Health Phys. 2011 Nov;101(5):551-8. doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e318222ec5c.
7
Decision making for late-phase recovery from nuclear or radiological incidents.核事故或辐射事故后期恢复的决策制定。
Health Phys. 2015 Feb;108(2):161-9. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000233.
8
Critical Areas for Improvement in Communications Regarding Radiological Terrorism.放射恐怖主义相关沟通中的关键改进领域
Health Phys. 2018 Feb;114(2):214-217. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000764.
9
The Irish approach to postaccident preparedness.
Ann ICRP. 2018 Oct;47(3-4):260-269. doi: 10.1177/0146645318756822. Epub 2018 May 1.
10
Off-site nuclear emergency management.场外核应急管理。
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2004;109(1-2):83-7. doi: 10.1093/rpd/nch264.

引用本文的文献

1
Digital Interventions for Psychological Well-being in University Students: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.大学生心理健康的数字干预措施:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Sep 28;24(9):e39686. doi: 10.2196/39686.
2
A Bibliometric Analysis on Global Psychological and Behavioral Research Landscape on COVID-19 Pandemic.对 COVID-19 大流行期间全球心理学和行为学研究领域的文献计量分析。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jan 13;19(2):879. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19020879.

本文引用的文献

1
Evaluation of Risk Perception and Risk-Comparison Information Regarding Dietary Radionuclides after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident.2011年福岛核电站事故后饮食中放射性核素的风险认知与风险比较信息评估
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 1;11(11):e0165594. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165594. eCollection 2016.
2
How Do Low-Literacy Populations Perceive "Dirty Bombs"? Implications for Preparedness Messages.低识字率人群如何看待“脏弹”?对备灾信息的启示。
Health Secur. 2016 Sep-Oct;14(5):331-44. doi: 10.1089/hs.2016.0037. Epub 2016 Sep 1.
3
Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health-Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident.
信息来源作为比利时福岛核事故健康相关风险感知的解释变量。
Risk Anal. 2017 Mar;37(3):570-582. doi: 10.1111/risa.12618. Epub 2016 Jun 20.
4
The limits of public communication coordination in a nuclear emergency: lessons from media reporting on the Fukushima case.核应急中公众传播协调的局限性:媒体对福岛事件报道的教训
J Radiol Prot. 2016 Jun;36(2):S45-63. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/36/2/S45. Epub 2016 Jun 6.
5
Using eye tracking and gaze pattern analysis to test a "dirty bomb" decision aid in a pilot RCT in urban adults with limited literacy.在一项针对识字能力有限的城市成年人的试点随机对照试验中,使用眼动追踪和注视模式分析来测试一种“脏弹”决策辅助工具。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Jun 8;16:67. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0304-5.
6
Who is sceptical about emerging public health threats? Results from 39 national surveys in the United Kingdom.谁对新出现的公共卫生威胁持怀疑态度?英国39项全国性调查的结果。
Public Health. 2015 Dec;129(12):1553-62. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.09.004. Epub 2015 Oct 23.
7
Lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident: efficient education items of radiation safety for general public.从福岛第一核电站事故中吸取的教训:面向公众的辐射安全高效教育项目。
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015 Jul;165(1-4):510-2. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv083. Epub 2015 Apr 17.
8
Attitudes and perceptions of urban African Americans of a "dirty bomb" radiological terror event: results of a qualitative study and implications for effective risk communication.城市非裔美国人对“脏弹”放射性恐怖事件的态度和认知:一项定性研究的结果及对有效风险沟通的启示
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015 Feb;9(1):9-18. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2014.158. Epub 2015 Jan 22.
9
Who was concerned about radiation, food safety, and natural disasters after the great East Japan earthquake and Fukushima catastrophe? A nationwide cross-sectional survey in 2012.在东日本大地震和福岛灾难之后,谁关注辐射、食品安全和自然灾害?2012年的一项全国性横断面调查。
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 2;9(9):e106377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106377. eCollection 2014.
10
Assessing radiation emergency preparedness planning by using community assessment for public health emergency response (CASPER) methodology.使用社区公共卫生应急响应评估(CASPER)方法评估辐射应急准备规划。
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014 Jun;29(3):262-9. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X14000491. Epub 2014 Jun 6.