Dataset Information

Public perceptions of conflicting information surrounding COVID-19: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults.

ABSTRACT: Conflicting information surrounding COVID-19 abounds, from disagreement over the effectiveness of face masks in preventing viral transmission to competing claims about the promise of certain treatments. Despite the potential for conflicting information about COVID-19 to produce adverse public health effects, little is known about whether the U.S. public notices this information, and whether certain population subgroups are particularly likely to do so. To address these questions, we fielded a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults in late April 2020 (N = 1,007). Results showed substantial self-reported exposure to conflicting information about COVID-19, with nearly 75% of participants reporting having recently heard such information from health experts, politicians, and/or others. Participants perceived disagreement across a range of COVID-19-related issues, though from politicians more than health experts. Factors including political affiliation, information source use, and personal experience with COVID-19 were associated with perceptions of disagreement. Future research should consider potential cognitive and behavioral consequences of such perceptions.

SUBMITTER: Nagler RH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7577476 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Public perceptions of conflicting information surrounding COVID-19: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults.

Nagler Rebekah H RH Vogel Rachel I RI Gollust Sarah E SE Rothman Alexander J AJ Fowler Erika Franklin EF Yzer Marco C MC

PloS one 20201021 10

Conflicting information surrounding COVID-19 abounds, from disagreement over the effectiveness of face masks in preventing viral transmission to competing claims about the promise of certain treatments. Despite the potential for conflicting information about COVID-19 to produce adverse public health effects, little is known about whether the U.S. public notices this information, and whether certain population subgroups are particularly likely to do so. To address these questions, we fielded a na ...[more]

PMID: 33085719

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite controversy among experts regarding aducanumab's approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, little is known about public opinion on this matter.MethodsWe conducted a representative survey of U.S. adults ages 35 and older to (1) determine opinions regarding aducanumab's approval, (2) identify any evidence of reputational injury to the Food and Drug Administration, and (3) explore opinions regarding policy responses available to policymakers, such as those relating to a national coverage determination by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The survey was administered online and in English and Spanish using a probability-based sample derived from the National Opinion Research Center's AmeriSpeak® panel. Selection probabilities in the panel and survey design account for differences in population distribution and expected response rates by demographic. The survey was analyzed using survey weights to adjust for selection probabilities and non-response.ResultsA total of 1025 respondents completed the survey. While approximately three-quarters of respondents were initially unfamiliar with aducanumab, respondents were less supportive of the drug's approval once given information about the drug's potential clinical and economic impact. Sixty-three percent of respondents support restricting aducanumab access to patients most likely to benefit. Seventy-one percent indicated a willingness to enroll a family member with mild Alzheimer's disease in a "waitlist"-style trial to further study aducanumab; sixty percent indicated a willingness to enroll a family member in a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eighty-one percent agree aducanumab should be withdrawn from the market if confirmatory trials fail. The median respondent was willing to pay $1-5 in higher Part B premiums to cover aducanumab.ConclusionThese findings demonstrate support for a range of proposed policies in response to aducanumab's approval. The opinions of an informed public ought to be considered when developing policies in response to aducanumab's approval.

Project description:ObjectiveThe number of patients with chronic diseases and subsequent visits to various healthcare professionals has been rising over the past decades, exposing patients to potential risks of receiving conflicting medication information. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of conflicting information on medications perceived by chronic patients in Switzerland and to understand its impact on patients' medication self-management and navigation in the healthcare system.ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study included adult patients taking at least one prescribed medication for at least 6 months, who had visited at least two physicians in the past 3 months.Main outcome measuresData on patients' perceptions of conflicting information were collected in person through a 17-item questionnaire available on paper and electronically with four domains: (1) whether the patient had perceived any conflicting information, (2) categories of conflicting information, (3) impact and (4) sources involved in the conflicting information.ResultsOf the 405 included patients, 47% perceived conflicting information related to one or more medication topics including indication, schedule, dosage, risk, severity or duration of side effects. Patients who perceived conflicting information were prescribed more drugs than those perceiving no conflicting information (p<0.01). Consequently, 65% of the participants modified their navigation of the healthcare system and 34% reported medication non-adherence. General practitioners (82%), specialist physicians (74%) and pharmacists (49%) were the healthcare professionals most often involved in conflicting information. Experience with the medication, its package insert and significant others were more frequently involved in conflicting information than internet or social media.ConclusionNearly half the patients in our study perceived conflicting information in the outpatient healthcare system, which can decrease medication effectiveness and pose safety issues. This issue is widely overlooked and unaddressed. Consistency of information among healthcare providers in partnership with patients should be reinforced through guidelines and new models of interprofessional care.

Project description:Since 2004, Kenya's national malaria treatment guidelines have stipulated artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) as first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria, and since 2014, confirmatory diagnosis of malaria in all cases before treatment has been recommended. A number of strategies to support national guidelines have been implemented in the public and private sectors in recent years. A nationally-representative malaria outlet survey, implemented across four epidemiological zones, was conducted between June and August 2016 to provide practical evidence to inform strategies and policies in Kenya towards achieving national malaria control goals.A total of 17,852 outlets were screened and 2271 outlets were eligible and interviewed. 78.3% of all screened public health facilities stocked both malaria diagnostic testing and quality-assured ACT (QAACT). Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy was available in 70% of public health facilities in endemic areas where it is recommended for treatment. SP was rarely found in the public sector outside of the endemic areas (< 0.5%). The anti-malaria stocking private sector had lower levels of QAACT (46.7%) and malaria blood testing (20.8%) availability but accounted for majority of anti-malarial distribution (70.6% of the national market share). More than 40% of anti-malarials were distributed by unregistered pharmacies (37.3%) and general retailers (7.1%). QAACT accounted for 58.2% of the total anti-malarial market share, while market share for non-QAACT was 15.8% and for SP, 24.8%. In endemic areas, 74.9% of anti-malarials distributed were QAACT. Elsewhere, QAACT market share was 49.4% in the endemic-prone areas, 33.2% in seasonal-transmission areas and 37.9% in low-risk areas.Although public sector availability of QAACT and malaria diagnosis is relatively high, there is a gap in availability of both testing and treatment that must be addressed. The private sector in Kenya, where the majority of anti-malarials are distributed, is also critical for achieving universal coverage with appropriate malaria case management. There is need for a renewed commitment and effective strategies to ensure access to affordable QAACT and confirmatory testing in the private sector, and should consider how to address malaria case management among informal providers responsible for a substantial proportion of the anti-malarial market share.

Project description:IntroductionAvoidable blindness is a significant public health problem in India. Nationally representative RAAB surveys (Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness) are being conducted periodically in the country to know the current status of blindness in the country. The current study describes the findings from the RAAB survey conducted during 2015-19 in India.MethodologyA cross-sectional, population-based survey was conducted across the entire country among persons aged 50 years and above using RAAB version 6 methodology. Presenting and pinhole visual acuity was recorded followed by lens examination using a torchlight. In order to estimate the prevalence of blindness and visual impairment in overall population in India, district weights were assigned to each of the 31 surveyed districts and the prevalence was standardized using the RAAB software.ResultsThe overall weighted, age-gender standardized, prevalence of blindness (presenting visual acuity <3/60 in better eye) in population aged ≥50 years was 1.99% (95% CI 1.94%, 2.13%) and of visual impairment (VI) (presenting visual acuity <6/12 in better eye) was 26.68% (95% CI 26.57-27.17%). On multivariate analysis, adjusted odds ratio showed that blindness was associated with age ≥ 80 years (OR = 20.3, 95% CI: 15.6-26.4) and being illiterate (OR = 5.6, 95% CI: 3.6-8.9). Blindness was not found to be significantly associated with either gender or locality.ConclusionThe results of the survey demonstrate that currently more than one fourth of persons aged 50 years and above are visually impaired (PVA<6/12 in better eye) in India. The prevalence of blindness among them is 1.99%, and older age and illiteracy are significantly associated with blindness. Major causes of blindness included cataract (66.2%), corneal opacity (CO) (8.2%), cataract surgical complications (7.2%), posterior segment disorders (5.9%) and glaucoma (5.5%). The proportion of blindness and visual impairment that is due to avoidable causes include 92.9% and 97.4% respectively.

Dataset Information

Public perceptions of conflicting information surrounding COVID-19: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults.

Publications

Public perceptions of conflicting information surrounding COVID-19: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets