National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Introduction
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×

REFERENCES

Agley, J. (2020). Assessing changes in US public trust in science amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health, 183, 122–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.05.004.

Airhihenbuwa, C.O., Iwelunmor, J., Munodawafa, D., Ford, C.L., Oni, T., Agyemang, C., Mota, C., Ikuomola, O.B., Simbayi, L., Fallah, M.P., Qian, Z., Makinwa, B., Niang, C., and Okosun, I. (2020). Peer reviewed: Culture matters in communicating the global response to COVID-19. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, 1–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200245.

Ali, S.H., Foreman, J., Tozan, Y., Capasso, A., Jones, A.M., and DiClemente, R.J. (2020). Trends and predictors of COVID-19 information sources and their relationship with knowledge and beliefs related to the pandemic: Nationwide cross-sectional study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 6(4), 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/21071.

Balog-Way, D., McComas, K., and Besley, J. (2020). The evolving field of risk communication. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2240–2262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13615.

Baron, J., and Hershey, J.C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569–579. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569.

Bartik, A.W., Bertrand, M., Cullen, Z., Glaeser, E.L., Luca, M., and Stanton, C. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on small business outcomes and expectations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(30), 17656–17666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006991117.

Bedrosian, S.R., Young, C.E., Smith, L.A., Cox J.D, Manning, C., Pechta, L., Telfer, J.L., Gaines-McCollom, M., Harben, K., Holmes, W., Lubell, K.M., McQuiston, J.H., Nordlund, K., O’Connor, J., Reynolds, B.S., Schindelar, J.A., Shelley, G., and Daniel, K.L. (2016). Lessons of risk communication and health promotion: West Africa and United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Supplements, 65(3), 68–74. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6503a10.

Berg, S.H., O’Hara, J.K., Shortt, M.T., Thune, H., Brønnick, K.K., Lungu, D.A. Røislien, J., and Wiig, S. (2021). Health authorities’ health risk communication with the public during pandemics: A rapid scoping review. BioMed Central Public Health, 21(1), 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11468-3.

Briñol, P., and Petty, R.E. (2009). Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 49–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280802643640.

Brivio, E., Oliveri, S., and Pravettoni, G. (2020). Empowering communication in emergency contexts: Reflections from the Italian coronavirus outbreak. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 95(5), 849–851. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.03.021.

Bruine de Bruin, W., and Bostrom, A. (2013). Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Supplement 3), 14062–14068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212729110.

Bruine de Bruin, W., Güvenç, Ü., Fischhoff, B., Armstrong, C.M., and Caruso, D. (2009). Communicating about xenotransplantation: Models and scenarios. Risk Analysis, 29, 1105–1115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01241.x.

Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. London: Palgrave Pivot.

Cammett, M., and Lieberman, E. (2020). Building solidarity: Challenges, options, and implications for COVID-19 responses. COVID-19 Rapid Response Impact Initiative White Paper, 4. Available: https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/safrawhitepaper4c.pdf?m=1585845049.

Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., Mitchell, R.B., and Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086–8091. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2022a). COVID-19 community levels. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/covid-by-county.html.

____. (2022b). Trends in number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. Available: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailycases.

____. (2022c). COVID-19 integrated county view. Available: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#county-view?list_select_state=all_states&list_select_county=all_counties&data-type=CommunityLevels.

____. (2022d). Indicators for Monitoring COVID-19 Community Levels and Making Public Health Recommendations. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/indicators-monitoring-community-levels.html.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×

Coroiu, A., Moran, C., Campbell, T., and Geller, A.C. (2020). Barriers and facilitators of adherence to social distancing recommendations during COVID-19 among a large international sample of adults. PLOS ONE, 15(10), 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239795.

Daniel, E., Bardi, A., Fischer, R., Benish-Weisman, M., and Lee, J.A. (2022). Changes in personal values in pandemic times. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 572–582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F19485506211024026.

Devine, D., Gaskell, J., Jennings, W., and Stoker, G. (2021). Trust and the coronavirus pandemic: What are the consequences of and for trust? An early review of the literature. Political Studies Review, 19(2), 274–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920948684.

DiClemente, R., and Jackson, J. (2017). Risk communication. In International encyclopedia of public health (pp. 378–382). Elsevier Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803678-5.00389-1.

Ericsson, A., and Simon, H. (1994). Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Evans, J.H., and Hargittai, E. (2020). Who doesn’t trust Fauci? The public’s belief in the expertise and shared values of scientists in the COVID-19 pandemic. Socius, 6, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120947337.

Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., and Johnson, S.M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1%3C1::AID-BDM333%3E3.0.CO;2-S.

Fischhoff, B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Supplement 3), 14033–14039. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213273110.

______. (2020). Making decisions in a COVID-19 world. Journal of the American Medical Association, 323(22), 139–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.10178.

Fischhoff, B., and Davis, A.L. (2014). Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (Supplement 4), 13664–13671. DOI: https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1317504111.

Fischhoff, B., Wong-Parodi, G., Garfin, D., Holman, E.A., and Silver, R. (2018). Public understanding of Ebola risks: Mastering an unfamiliar threat. Risk Analysis, 38, 71–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12794.

Fridman, I., Lucas, N., Henke, D., and Zigler, C.K. (2020). Association between public knowledge about COVID-19, trust in information sources, and adherence to social distancing: Cross-sectional survey. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 6(3), 1–31. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.2196/22060.

Galesic, M., and Garcia-Retamero, R. (2010). Statistical numeracy for health: A cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170(5), 462–468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.481.

______. (2011). Graph literacy: A cross-cultural comparison. Medical Decision Making, 31(3), 444-457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10373805.

Garfin, D.R., Fischhoff, B., Holman, E.A., and Silver, R.C. (2021). Risk perceptions and health behaviors as COVID-19 emerged in the United States: Results from a probability-based nationally representative sample. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(4), 584–598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000374.

Gentner, D., and Stevens, A. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gerace, A., Rigney, G., and Anderson, J.R. (2022). Predicting attitudes towards easing COVID-19 restrictions in the United States of America: The role of health concerns, demographic, political, and individual difference factors. PLOS ONE, 17(2), 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263128.

Grant, M.J., and Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Grant, A.M., and Hofmann, D.A. (2011). It’s not all about me: Motivating hand hygiene among health care professionals by focusing on patients. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1494–1499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611419172.

Green, M.C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, S163–S183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00288.x.

Grounds, M.A., and Joslyn, S.L. (2018). Communicating weather forecast uncertainty: Do individual differences matter? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(1), 18–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000165.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×

Guidry, J.P., Jin, Y., Orr, C.A., Messner, M., and Meganck, S. (2017). Ebola on Instagram and Twitter: How health organizations address the health crisis in their social media engagement. Public Relations Review, 43(3), 477–486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.009.

Head, B.W. (2007). Community engagement: Participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441–454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140701513570.

Institute of Medicine. (1999). Toward environmental justice: Research, education and health policy needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/6034.

Jetten, J., Reicher, S.D., Haslam, S.A., and Cruwys, T. (2020). Together apart: The psychology of COVID-19. Sage Publications. Available: https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2020/05/addressing-the-psychology-of-together-apart-free-book-download.

Jingnan, H. (2020). Why there are so many different guidelines for face masks for the public. National Public Radio. Available: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/10/829890635/why-there-so-many-different-guidelines-for-face-masks-for-the-public.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness (No. 6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jones, E. (2020). The psychology of protecting the UK public against external threat: COVID-19 and the Blitz compared. Lancet Psychiatry, 7, 991–996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30342-4.

Joslyn, S., and Demnitz, R. (2021). Explaining how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere: Does it change attitudes toward climate change? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(3), 473–484. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xap0000347.

Joslyn, S., and LeClerc, J. (2013). Decisions with uncertainty: The glass half full. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 308–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413481473.

Joslyn, S., Savelli, S., Duarte, H.A., Burgeno, J., Qin, C., Han, J.H., and Gulacsik, G. (2021). COVID-19: Risk perception, risk communication, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(4), 599–620. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xap0000398.

Kovic, M., and Füchslin, T. (2018). Probability and conspiratorial thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 390–400. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/acp.3408.

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903529749.

Lejano, R.P., Rahman, M.S., and Kabir, L. (2020). Risk communication for empowerment: Interventions in a Rohingya refugee settlement. Risk Analysis, 40(11), 2360–2372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13541.

Leshner, G., Bolls, P., Gardner, E., Moore, J., and Kreuter, M. (2018). Breast cancer survivor testimonies: Effects of narrative and emotional valence on affect and cognition. Cogent Social Sciences, 4(1), 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1426281.

Levy, D. L. (2020). COVID-19 and global governance. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 562–566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12654.

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U.K., and Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008.

Lopez-Leon, S., Wegman-Ostrosky, T., Perelman, C., Sepulveda, R., Rebolledo, P.A., Cuapio, A., and Villapol, S. (2021). More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 11, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95565-8.

MacFarlane, D., Tay, L.Q., Hurlstone, M.J., and Ecker, U.K. (2021). Refuting spurious COVID-19 treatment claims reduces demand and misinformation sharing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(2), 248–258. DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.12.005.

Michie, S., Van Stralen, M.M., and West, R. (2011). The behavior change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behavior change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.

Mulgan, G. (2005). Government, knowledge and the business of policy making: The potential and limits of evidence-based policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 1(2), 215–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/1744264053730789.

Murphy, S.T., Frank, L.B., Chatterjee, J.S., Moran, M.B., Zhao, N., Amezola de Herrera, P., and Baezconde-Garbanati, L.A. (2015). Comparing the relative efficacy of narrative vs. nonnarrative health messages in

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×

reducing health disparities using a randomized trial. American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), 2117–2123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302332.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12434/public-participation-in-environmental-assessment-and-decision-making.

_____. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/23674.

_____. (2020a). A Framework for equitable allocation of COVID-19 vaccine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/25917.

_____. (2020b). Rapid expert consultation on the effectiveness of fabric masks for the COVID-19 pandemic (letter report). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/25776.

_____. (2021a). School-based strategies for addressing the mental health and well-being of youth in the wake of COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/26262.

_____. (2021b). Short-term strategies for addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on women’s workforce participation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/26303.

_____. (2021c). Strategies for building confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/26068.

_____. (2021d). Understanding and communicating about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, effectiveness, and equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/26154.

_____. (2021e). Communication strategies for building confidence in COVID-19 vaccines: Addressing variants and childhood vaccinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/26361.

Nieh, H.P., Wu, W.C., Luh, D.L., Yen, L.L., Hurng, B.S., and Chang, H. Y. (2018). Will personal values predict the development of smoking and drinking behaviors? A prospective cohort study of children and adolescents in Taiwan. Journal of Health Psychology, 23(7), 982–992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1359105316681063.

Patton, M.Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Petersen, M.B., Bor, A., Jørgensen, F., and Lindholt, M.F. (2021). Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(29), 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024597118.

Pfattheicher, S., Nockur, L., Böhm, R., Sassenrath, C., and Petersen, M.B. (2020). The emotional path to action: Empathy promotes physical distancing and wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological Science, 31(11), 1363–1373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797620964422.

Purvis, R.S., Willis, D.E., Moore, R., Bogulski, C., and McElfish, P.A. (2021). Perceptions of adult Arkansans regarding trusted sources of information about the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12385-1.

Quinn, S.C., Parmer, J., Freimuth, V.S., Hilyard, K.M., Musa, D., and Kim, K.H. (2013). Exploring communication, trust in government, and vaccination intention later in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic: Results of a national survey. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 11(2), 96-106. DOI: 10.1089/bsp.2012.0048.

Rawlins, B. (2008). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10627260802153421.

Reinholtz, N., Maglio, S.J., and Spiller, S.A. (2021). Stocks, flows, and risk response to pandemic data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(4), 657–668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000395.

Reynolds, B., and Quinn, S.C. (2008). Effective communication during an influenza pandemic: The value of using a crisis and emergency risk communication framework. Health Promotion Practice, 9(4_suppl), 13S–17S. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839908325267.

Saltzman, L.Y., Lesen, A.E., Henry, V., Hansel, T.C., and Bordnick, P.S. (2021). COVID-19 mental health disparities. Health Security, 19(S1), S-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2021.0017.

Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., and Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.2007.01917.x.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×

Seeger, M.W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(3), 232–244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880600769944.

Shaffer, V.A., Brodney, S., Gavaruzzi, T., Zisman-Ilani, Y., Munro, S., Smith, S.K., Thomas, E., Valentine, K.D., and Bekker, H.L. (2021). Do personal stories make patient decision aids more effective? An update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 41(7), 897–906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X211011100.

Siegrist, M. (2021). Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 480–490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13325.

Siegrist, M., and Bearth, A. (2021). Worldviews, trust, and risk perceptions shape public acceptance of COVID-19 public health measures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(24). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100411118.

Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., and Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353–362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.203034.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507.

Smith, R.D. (2006). Responding to global infectious disease outbreaks: Lessons from SARS on the role of risk perception, communication and management. Social Science and Medicine, 63(12), 3113–3123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.004.

Tierney, K.J. (2003). Disaster beliefs and institutional interests: Recycling disaster myths in the aftermath of 9/11. In L. Clarke (Ed.), Research in social problems and public policy: Vol. 11. Terrorism and disaster: New threats, new ideas (pp. 33–51). New York: Elsevier Science.

Transparent Communication in Epidemics (2014). What Ebola taught us about risk communication. Available: http://www.tellmeproject.eu/content/what-ebola-taught-us-about-risk-communication.

Trevena, L.J., Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., Edwards, A., Gaissmaier, W., Galesic, M., Han, P.K., King, J., Lawson, M.L., Linder, S.K., Lipkus, I., Ozanne, E., Peters, E., Timmermans, D., and Woloshin, S. (2013). Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(2), 1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7.

Van Bavel, J.J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P.S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M.J., Crum, A.J., Douglas, K.M., Druckman, J.N., Drury, J., Dube, O., Ellemers, N., Finkel, E.J., Fowler, J.H., Gelfand, M., Han, S., Haslam, S.A., Jetten, J, ... and Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behavior, 4, 460–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z.

van der Bles, A.M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A.L., and Spiegelhalter, D.J. (2020). The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(14), 7672–7683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913678117.

van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., and Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504.

Viswanath, K., Bekalu, M., Dhawan, D., Pinnamaneni, R., Lang, J., and McLoud, R. (2021). Individual and social determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–10.

Wellenius, G.A., Vispute, S., Espinosa, V., Fabrikant, A., Tsai, T.C., Hennessy, J., Dai, A., Williams, B., Gadepalli, K., Boulanger, A., Pearce, A., Kamath, C., Schlosberg, A., Bendebury, C., Mandayam, C., Stanton, C., Bavadekar, S., Pluntke, C., Desfontaines, D., ... and Gabrilovich, E. (2021). Impacts of social distancing policies on mobility and COVID-19 case growth in the US. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23404-5.

Wessely, S. (2005). Don’t panic! Short and long-term psychological reactions to the new terrorism. Journal of Mental Health, 14, 1–6.

World Health Organization. (2020a). Emergencies: Risk communication. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/emergencies-risk-communication.

______. (2020b). Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in health care settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak: Interim guidance, 29 January 2020. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330987.

______. (2020c). Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19:

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×

Interim guidance, 6 April 2020. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3.eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

Xie, Y., Xu, E., Bowe, B., and Al-Aly, Z. (2022). Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19. Nature Medicine, 28(3), 583–590. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01689-3.

Yen, M.Y., Wu, T.S.J., Chiu, A.W.H., Wong, W.W., Wang, P.E., Chan, T.C., and King, C.C. (2009). Taipei’s use of a multi-channel mass risk communication program to rapidly reverse an epidemic of highly communicable disease. PLOS ONE, 4(11), e7962. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007962.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26629.
×
Page 18
Next: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS »
Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19 Get This Book
×
 Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Many individual states and localities have loosened or eliminated mitigation measures as the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved. Individuals who wish to mitigate their risk of contracting COVID-19 must decide on effective strategies in environments that may have returned to pre-pandemic norms. Individuals must assess their level of risk and risk tolerance amid different mitigation measures, regulations, and metrics across states and localities. The public is also exposed to misinformation and disinformation through social and mainstream media - all occurring within a politically polarized environment. This rapid expert consultation draws on existing social, behavioral, and decision science research to identify actionable guidance for state, local, and tribal decision makers seeking to help members of the public make their own and others' risk assessments related to COVID-19.

This rapid expert consultation was produced through the Societal Experts Action Network (SEAN), an activity of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. SEAN links researchers in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences with decision makers to respond to policy questions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. This project is affiliated with the National Academies' Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!