• 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

大流行及危机防范与应对:将可信度和集体行动的文化、社会及政治驱动因素概念化

Pandemic and Crisis Preparedness and Response: Conceptualizing Cultural, Social and Political Drivers of Trustworthiness and Collective Action.

作者信息

Bærøe Kristine, Árnason Vilhjálmur, Jansen Maarten, Yamin Alicia Ely, Ruano Ana Lorena, Davis Austen Peter

机构信息

Bergen Centre for Ethics Priority Setting in Health (BCEPS), Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Norway.

University of Iceland, Rekjavik, Iceland and Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Science, Bergen, Norway.

出版信息

Public Health Ethics. 2025 Apr 21;18(2):phaf004. doi: 10.1093/phe/phaf004. eCollection 2025 Jul.

DOI:10.1093/phe/phaf004
PMID:40264498
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12010701/
Abstract

During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, trust in governments and between individuals was associated with lower rates of infections and mortality. Thus, understanding the conditions under which public trust allows for the development of effective policymaking, regular revision, and voluntary mobilization for effective implementation in times of crisis, is important from both a public health and governance perspective. In this article, we explore how core structures of distinct empirical, social and moral phenomena are theoretically interconnected into a conceptual model of trustworthiness in governing authorities. We hypothesize that empirical trustworthiness built over time needs to be combined with specific conditions for trustworthy agencies in emergency situations. We present a theoretically consistent conceptual model in the form of a compass tool that identifies areas of trust-conducive conditions for trustworthy authorities to address. The compass can be operationalized and empirically tested in specific national contexts. It can be applied by various groups to guide debate, explore, and monitor progress in developing trust-conducive conditions in support of a nation's holistic preparedness and response to crises. We have derived generalizable categories from specific issues occurring during the pandemic, but any team using this compass could dynamically align it for other types of crises.

摘要

在新冠疫情的早期阶段,对政府的信任以及个人之间的信任与较低的感染率和死亡率相关。因此,从公共卫生和治理的角度来看,了解在何种条件下公众信任能够促进有效政策制定、定期修订以及在危机时期为有效实施而进行的自愿动员非常重要。在本文中,我们探讨了不同经验、社会和道德现象的核心结构如何在理论上相互关联,形成一个关于治理当局可信度的概念模型。我们假设,随着时间推移建立起来的经验可信度需要与紧急情况下可信机构的特定条件相结合。我们以一种罗盘工具的形式呈现了一个理论上连贯的概念模型,该模型确定了可信当局需要应对的有助于建立信任的条件领域。这个罗盘可以在特定的国家背景下进行操作化和实证检验。它可以被不同群体应用,以指导辩论、探索和监测在营造有助于建立信任的条件方面的进展,以支持一个国家的整体准备和应对危机的能力。我们从疫情期间出现的具体问题中得出了可推广的类别,但任何使用这个罗盘的团队都可以根据其他类型的危机动态调整它。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/06a9/12010701/3c25b04cfb5b/phaf004_fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/06a9/12010701/2e07255d3c7e/phaf004_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/06a9/12010701/20389758389f/phaf004_fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/06a9/12010701/3c25b04cfb5b/phaf004_fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/06a9/12010701/2e07255d3c7e/phaf004_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/06a9/12010701/20389758389f/phaf004_fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/06a9/12010701/3c25b04cfb5b/phaf004_fig3.jpg

相似文献

1
Pandemic and Crisis Preparedness and Response: Conceptualizing Cultural, Social and Political Drivers of Trustworthiness and Collective Action.大流行及危机防范与应对:将可信度和集体行动的文化、社会及政治驱动因素概念化
Public Health Ethics. 2025 Apr 21;18(2):phaf004. doi: 10.1093/phe/phaf004. eCollection 2025 Jul.
2
Trustworthiness Over Time on Twitter: Three Critical Periods for the Norwegian Health Authorities and Political Leadership During the COVID-19 Pandemic.推特上随时间推移的可信度:新冠疫情期间挪威卫生当局和政治领导层的三个关键时期
Soc Media Soc. 2023 Jun 8;9(2):20563051231179689. doi: 10.1177/20563051231179689. eCollection 2023 Apr-Jun.
3
Cross-Cultural Sense-Making of Global Health Crises: A Text Mining Study of Public Opinions on Social Media Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Developed and Developing Economies.全球卫生危机的跨文化意义建构:关于发达经济体和发展中经济体社交媒体上与新冠疫情相关公众舆论的文本挖掘研究
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Jan 27;27:e58656. doi: 10.2196/58656.
4
Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: an exploratory analysis of infection and fatality rates, and contextual factors associated with preparedness in 177 countries, from Jan 1, 2020, to Sept 30, 2021.大流行防范与新冠疫情:对2020年1月1日至2021年9月30日期间177个国家的感染率、死亡率以及与防范相关的背景因素进行的探索性分析。
Lancet. 2022 Apr 16;399(10334):1489-1512. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00172-6. Epub 2022 Feb 1.
5
Demonstrating institutional trustworthiness: A framework for pharmacy regulatory authorities.彰显制度公信力:药剂监管机构框架。
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022 Oct;18(10):3792-3799. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.04.007. Epub 2022 May 1.
6
Thinking politically about intersectoral action: Ideas, Interests and Institutions shaping political dimensions of governing during COVID-19.从政治角度思考部门间行动:塑造 COVID-19 期间治理政治层面的理念、利益和机构。
Health Policy Plan. 2024 Nov 18;39(Supplement_2):i75-i92. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czae047.
7
8
Exploring Political Mistrust in Pandemic Risk Communication: Mixed-Method Study Using Social Media Data Analysis.探索疫情风险沟通中的政治信任缺失:基于社交媒体数据分析的混合方法研究
J Med Internet Res. 2023 Oct 20;25:e50199. doi: 10.2196/50199.
9
Trustworthy artificial intelligence and ethical design: public perceptions of trustworthiness of an AI-based decision-support tool in the context of intrapartum care.值得信赖的人工智能和道德设计:公众对基于人工智能的决策支持工具在产时护理背景下的可信度的看法。
BMC Med Ethics. 2023 Jun 20;24(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12910-023-00917-w.
10
Conceptualizing Trust and Distrust as Alternative Stable States: Lessons from the Flint Water Crisis.将信任与不信任概念化为交替稳定状态:来自弗林特水危机的教训
Ecol Soc. 2023 Sep;28(3). doi: 10.5751/es-14410-280314.

本文引用的文献

1
Placing Trust at the Heart of Health Policy and Systems.将信任置于卫生政策和体系的核心。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024;13:8410. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8410. Epub 2024 May 7.
2
Trust during COVID-19: Which factors matter most?新冠疫情期间的信任:哪些因素最为重要?
Psychol Health Med. 2023 Jul-Dec;28(8):2389-2406. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2022.2141807. Epub 2022 Nov 5.
3
The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic.《柳叶刀》新冠疫情对未来的启示委员会
Lancet. 2022 Oct 8;400(10359):1224-1280. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01585-9. Epub 2022 Sep 14.
4
Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: an exploratory analysis of infection and fatality rates, and contextual factors associated with preparedness in 177 countries, from Jan 1, 2020, to Sept 30, 2021.大流行防范与新冠疫情:对2020年1月1日至2021年9月30日期间177个国家的感染率、死亡率以及与防范相关的背景因素进行的探索性分析。
Lancet. 2022 Apr 16;399(10334):1489-1512. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00172-6. Epub 2022 Feb 1.
5
The importance of trustworthiness: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.可信赖性的重要性:来自新冠疫情的教训。
Pediatr Res. 2022 Feb;91(3):482-485. doi: 10.1038/s41390-021-01866-z. Epub 2021 Dec 1.
6
Reconceptualising health security in post-COVID-19 world.后 COVID-19 世界的健康安全再概念化。
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jul;6(7). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006520.
7
Difficult trade-offs in response to COVID-19: the case for open and inclusive decision making.应对新冠疫情的艰难权衡:开放和包容性决策的必要性
Nat Med. 2021 Jan;27(1):10-13. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-01204-6.
8
The Global Health Security Index is not predictive of coronavirus pandemic responses among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.全球卫生安全指数不能预测经济合作与发展组织国家应对冠状病毒大流行的情况。
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 7;15(10):e0239398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239398. eCollection 2020.
9
The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries' COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome.全球卫生安全指数和卫生准备联合外部评估得分与各国的 COVID-19 检测响应时间和死亡率结果无关。
Epidemiol Infect. 2020 Sep 7;148:e210. doi: 10.1017/S0950268820002046.
10
Offline: The urgent need to protect global health accountability.线下:保护全球卫生问责制的迫切需求。
Lancet. 2019 Dec 7;394(10214):2052. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33057-0.