Dataset Information

A comparative analysis on risk communication between international and Chinese literature from the perspective of knowledge domain visualization.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severely damaged and endangered people's lives at the end of 2019. Risk communication plays an important role in the response to it successfully, which has been appreciated by the World Health Organization. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of risk communication research is necessary, which can understand current research hotspots and reveal new trends.

Methods

In this study, we collected 1134 international articles from the Web of Science database and 3983 Chinese articles from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database. Bibliometric and mapping knowledge domain analysis methods were used for temporal distribution analysis, cooperation network analysis, co-word network analysis, and burst detection analysis.

Results

The first article in this field was published by western scholars earlier, while the first Chinese article in 2002. Research institutions mainly come from universities. The USA plays a key role in this field. Chinese scholars had a closer cooperation network, but there was less cooperation among domestic institutions. Risk perception, trust, risk management, and risk information had always been the research hotspots in this academic. Trust, sentiment research, and public risk events were essential directions for the future. There are 25 burst words for international articles, while 11 burst words for Chinese articles from 2000 to 2020.

Conclusions

In summary, both domestic and international researchers are concerned about risk communication, risk perception, trust, and risk information. International research on risk communication is systematic and comprehensive relatively. However, Chinese scholars take severe acute respiratory syndrome as the research background and reviewing foreign knowledge as the research starting point. With the purpose of practical and applied research based on a public emergency, the risk communication research lacks continuity in Chinese academy in the past years.

SUBMITTER: Dong H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8162189 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAt the end of 2019, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severely damaged and endangered people's lives. The public health emergency management system in China has played an essential role in handling the response to the outbreak, which has been appreciated by the World Health Organization and some countries. Hence, it is necessary to conduct an overall analysis of the development of the health emergency management system in China. This can provide a reference for scholars to aid in understanding the current situation and to reveal new research topics.MethodsWe collected 2247 international articles from the Web of Science database and 959 Chinese articles from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database. Bibliometric and mapping knowledge domain analysis methods were used in this study for temporal distribution analysis, cooperation network analysis, and co-word network analysis.ResultsThe first international article in this field was published in 1991, while the first Chinese article was published in 2005. The research institutions producing these studies mainly existed in universities and health organizations. Developed countries and European countries published the most articles overall, while eastern China published the most articles within China. There were 52 burst words for international articles published from 1999-2018 and 18 burst words for Chinese articles published from 2003-2018. International top-ranked articles according to the number of citations appeared in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2014, 2015, and 2016, while the corresponding Chinese articles appeared in 2003, 2004, 2009, and 2011.ConclusionsThere are differences in the regional and economic distribution of international and Chinese cooperation networks. International research is often related to timely issues mainly by focusing on emergency preparedness and monitoring of public health events, while China has focused on public health emergencies and their disposition. International research began on terrorism and bioterrorism, followed by disaster planning and emergency preparedness, epidemics, and infectious diseases. China considered severe acute respiratory syndrome as the starting research background and the legal system construction as the research starting point, which was followed by the mechanism, structure, system, and training abroad for public health emergency management.

Project description:Background: As cancer has become a major public health issue in China, fertility preservation remains limited despite the wide application of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) throughout the country. Objective: This study aimed to identify gaps in knowledge and communication as well as referrals in the previous year regarding oncofertility among medical and surgical oncologists and breast cancer patients (BCPs) in Chinese academic settings to target areas of needed improvement. Materials and Methods: A WeChat online questionnaire was designed, distributed, and compared between medical and surgical oncology specialists and reproductive age BCPs in academic teaching settings in Shanghai. Results: Sixty-one medical and surgical oncologists and 125 BCPs responded to the survey. 63.3% of oncologists were familiar with the term "oncofertility" compared to 25.6% of BCPs (p < 0.001). Oncologists were more likely to correctly know the costs associated with treatment (59.0 vs. 32.0%, p < 0.001); patient did not have to be married to undergo oncofertility treatment (50.8 vs. 24.8%, p < 0.001). Both oncologists and BCPs were similarly unlikely to know when patients could utilize cryopreserved tissue in the future (37.7 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.056). While oncologists reported they discussed all oncofertility options (41.0%) and offered psychological counseling (98.4%), significantly fewer BCPs reported receiving information on all options and offered counseling (3.2%, p < 0.001 and 85.6%, p < 0.01). Knowledge of oncofertility was the most important predictor for providing and receiving counseling from oncologists [OR = 6.44 (95% CI = 1.59-26.1, p = 0.009] and BCPs (OR = 3.73 95% CI: = 1.36-10.2, p = 0.011). Overall, 57.4% of oncologists referred <10 patients and none referred more than 25 patients in the past year. Conclusion: Data suggests a significant knowledge gap and ineffective communication/comprehension exists between academic Chinese oncologists and BCPs. Continued education and raised awareness are needed to optimize utilization of oncofertility services in China.