Multidisciplinary approach to COVID-19 risk communication: a framework and tool for individual and regional risk assessment

  1. Rishi Ram Parajuli
  2. Bhogendra Mishra
  3. Amrit Banstola
  4. Bhoj Raj Ghimire
  5. Shobha Poudel
  6. Kusum Sharma
  7. Sameer Mani Dixit
  8. Sunil Kumar Sah
  9. Padam Simkhada
  10. Edwin van Teijlingen

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has exceeded over sixty-five million cases globally. Different approaches are followed to mitigate its impact and reduce its spreading in different countries, but limiting mobility and exposure have been de-facto precautions to reduce transmission. However, a full lockdown cannot be sustained for a prolonged period. An evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach on risk zoning, personal and transmission risk assessment in near real-time, and risk communication would support the optimized decisions to minimize the impact of coronavirus on our lives. This paper presents a framework to assess the individual and regional risk of COVID-19 along with risk communication tools and mechanisms. Relative risk scores on a scale of 100 represent the integrated risk of influential factors. The personal risk model incorporates age, exposure history, symptoms, local risk and existing health condition, whereas regional risk is computed through the actual cases of COVID-19, public health risk factors, socioeconomic condition of the region, and immigration statistics. A web application tool ( http://www.covira.info ) has been developed, where anyone can assess their risk and find the guided information links primarily for Nepal. This study provides regional risk for Nepal, but the framework is scalable across the world. However, personal risk can be assessed immediately from anywhere.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.11.20151464: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-020-78779-0
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.11.20151464v1 on medRxiv