Knowledge and risk perceptions of the Ebola virus in the United States

Objectives
The Ebola epidemic has received extensive media coverage since the first diagnosed cases of the virus in the US. We investigated risk perceptions of Ebola among individuals living in the US and measured their knowledge of the virus.

Method
US residents completed an online survey (conducted 14–18 November 2014) that assessed their Ebola knowledge and risk perceptions.

Results
Respondents who were more knowledgeable of Ebola perceived less risk of contracting the virus and were less worried about the virus, but also regarded Ebola as more serious than less knowledgeable respondents. The internet served as a major source of additional information among knowledgeable respondents.

Conclusion
The findings suggest that the provision of health information about Ebola may be effective in informing the public about Ebola risks and of preventive measures without curtailing the seriousness of the virus. Policymakers may seek to further exploit the internet as a means of delivering information about Ebola in the US and worldwide.

Collating the knowledge base for core outcome set development: developing and appraising the search strategy for a systematic review

Background: The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative is developing a publicly accessible online resource to collate the knowledge base for core outcome set development (COS) and the applied work from different health conditions. Ensuring that the database is as comprehensive as possible and keeping it up to date are key to its value for users. This requires the development and application of an optimal, multi-faceted search strategy to identify relevant material. This paper describes the challenges of designing and implementing such a search, outlining the development of the search strategy for studies of COS development, and, in turn, the process for establishing a database of COS.

Methods: We investigated the performance characteristics of this strategy including sensitivity, precision and numbers needed to read. We compared the contribution of databases towards identifying included studies to identify the best combination of methods to retrieve all included studies.

Results: Recall of the search strategies ranged from 4% to 87%, and precision from 0.77% to 1.13%. MEDLINE performed best in terms of recall, retrieving 216 (87%) of the 250 included records, followed by Scopus (44%). The Cochrane Methodology Register found just 4% of the included records. MEDLINE was also the database with the highest precision. The number needed to read varied between 89 (MEDLINE) and 130 (SCOPUS).

Conclusions: We found that two databases and hand searching were required to locate all of the studies in this review. MEDLINE alone retrieved 87% of the included studies, but actually 97% of the included studies were indexed on MEDLINE. The Cochrane Methodology Register did not contribute any records that were not found in the other databases, and will not be included in our future searches to identify studies developing COS. SCOPUS had the lowest precision rate (0.77) and highest number needed to read (130). In future COMET searches for COS a balance needs to be struck between the work involved in screening large numbers of records, the frequency of the searching and the likelihood that eligible studies will be identified by means other than the database searches.