Dataset Information

Emergency Physicians and Personal Narratives Improve the Perceived Effectiveness of COVID-19 Public Health Recommendations on Social Media: A Randomized Experiment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Containment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires the public to change behavior under social distancing mandates. Social media are important information dissemination platforms that can augment traditional channels communicating public health recommendations. The objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 public health messaging on Twitter when delivered by emergency physicians and containing personal narratives.

Methods

On April 30, 2020, we randomly assigned 2,007 U.S. adults to an online survey using a 2 × 2 factorial design. Participants rated one of four simulated Twitter posts varied by messenger type (emergency physician vs. federal official) and content (personal narrative vs. impersonal guidance). The main outcomes were perceived message effectiveness (35-point scale), perceived attitude effectiveness (PAE; 15-point scale), likelihood of sharing Tweets (7-point scale), and writing a letter to their governor to continue COVID-19 restrictions (write letter or none).

Results

The physician/personal (PP) message had the strongest effect and significantly improved all main messaging outcomes except for letter writing. Unadjusted mean differences between PP and federal/impersonal (FI) were as follows: perceived messaging effectiveness (3.2 [95% CI = 2.4 to 4.0]), PAE (1.3 [95% CI = 0.8 to 1.7]), and likelihood of sharing (0.4 [95% CI = 0.15 to 0.7]). For letter writing, PP made no significant impact compared to FI (odds ratio = 1.14 [95% CI = 0.89 to 1.46]).

Conclusions

Emergency physicians sharing personal narratives on Twitter are perceived to be more effective at communicating COVID-19 health recommendations compared to federal officials sharing impersonal guidance.

SUBMITTER: Solnick RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7753341 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesPhysicians adopt evidence-based guidelines with variable consistency. Narratives, or stories, offer a novel dissemination strategy for clinical recommendations. The study objective was to compare whether evidence-based narrative versus traditional summary improved recall of opioid prescribing guidelines from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP).MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized controlled experiment to compare whether narrative versus summary promoted short-term recall of six themes contained in the ACEP opioid guideline. The experiment was modeled after the free-recall test, an established technique in studies of memory. At a regional conference, emergency physicians (EPs) were randomized to read either a summary of the guideline (control) or a narrative (intervention). The fictional narrative was constructed to match the summary in content and length. One hour after reading the text, participants listed all content that they could recall. Two reviewers independently scored the responses to assess recall of the six themes. The primary outcome was the total number of themes recalled per participant. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of responses in each study arm that recalled individual themes and the proportion of responses in each arm that contained falsely recalled or extraneous information.ResultsNinety-five physicians were randomized. Eighty-two physicians completed the experiment, for a response rate of 86%. The mean of the total number of themes recalled per participant was 3.1 in the narrative arm versus 2.0 in the summary arm (difference = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6 to 1.7). For three themes, the proportion of responses that recalled the theme was significantly greater in the narrative arm compared to the summary arm, with the differences ranging from 20% to 51%. For one theme, recall was significantly greater in the summary arm. For two themes, there was no statistically significant difference in recall between the arms. In the summary arm, 54% of responses were found to contain falsely recalled or extraneous information versus 21% of responses in the narrative arm (difference = 33%, 95% CI = 14% to 53%).ConclusionsPhysicians exposed to a narrative about opioid guidelines were more likely to recall guideline content at 1 hour than those exposed to a summary of the guidelines. Future studies should examine whether the incorporation of narratives in dissemination campaigns improves guideline adoption and changes clinical practice

Project description:BackgroundDemographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted throughout sub-Saharan Africa indicate there is widespread acceptance of intimate partner violence, contributing to an adverse health risk environment for women. While qualitative studies suggest important limitations in the accuracy of the DHS methods used to elicit attitudes toward intimate partner violence, to date there has been little experimental evidence from sub-Saharan Africa that can be brought to bear on this issue.Methods and findingsWe embedded a randomized survey experiment in a population-based survey of 1,334 adult men and women living in Nyakabare Parish, Mbarara, Uganda. The primary outcomes were participants' personal beliefs about the acceptability of intimate partner violence and perceived norms about intimate partner violence in the community. To elicit participants' personal beliefs and perceived norms, we asked about the acceptability of intimate partner violence in five different vignettes. Study participants were randomly assigned to one of three survey instruments, each of which contained varying levels of detail about the extent to which the wife depicted in the vignette intentionally or unintentionally violated gendered standards of behavior. For the questions about personal beliefs, the mean (standard deviation) number of items where intimate partner violence was endorsed as acceptable was 1.26 (1.58) among participants assigned to the DHS-style survey variant (which contained little contextual detail about the wife's intentions), 2.74 (1.81) among participants assigned to the survey variant depicting the wife as intentionally violating gendered standards of behavior, and 0.77 (1.19) among participants assigned to the survey variant depicting the wife as unintentionally violating these standards. In a partial proportional odds regression model adjusting for sex and village of residence, with participants assigned to the DHS-style survey variant as the referent group, participants assigned the survey variant that depicted the wife as intentionally violating gendered standards of behavior were more likely to condone intimate partner violence in a greater number of vignettes (adjusted odds ratios [AORs] ranged from 3.87 to 5.74, with all p < 0.001), while participants assigned the survey variant that depicted the wife as unintentionally violating these standards were less likely to condone intimate partner violence (AORs ranged from 0.29 to 0.70, with p-values ranging from <0.001 to 0.07). The analysis of perceived norms displayed similar patterns, but the effects were slightly smaller in magnitude: participants assigned to the "intentional" survey variant were more likely to perceive intimate partner violence as normative (AORs ranged from 2.05 to 3.51, with all p < 0.001), while participants assigned to the "unintentional" survey variant were less likely to perceive intimate partner violence as normative (AORs ranged from 0.49 to 0.65, with p-values ranging from <0.001 to 0.14). The primary limitations of this study are that our assessments of personal beliefs and perceived norms could have been measured with error and that our findings may not generalize beyond rural Uganda.ConclusionsContextual information about the circumstances under which women in hypothetical vignettes were perceived to violate gendered standards of behavior had a significant influence on the extent to which study participants endorsed the acceptability of intimate partner violence. Researchers aiming to assess personal beliefs or perceived norms about intimate partner violence should attempt to eliminate, as much as possible, ambiguities in vignettes and questions administered to study participants.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02202824.

Project description:BackgroundFinancial ties between physicians and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry are common, but little is known about how patient trust is affected by these ties.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate how viewing online public disclosure of industry payments affects patients' trust ratings for physicians, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry.DesignThis was a randomized experimental evaluation.ParticipantsThere were 278 English-speaking participants over age 18 who had seen a healthcare provider in the previous 12 months who took part in the study.InterventionsParticipants searched for physicians on an online disclosure database, viewed payments from industry to the physicians, and assigned trust ratings. Participants were randomized to view physicians who received no payment ($0), low payment ($250-300), or high payment (>$13,000) from industry, or to a control arm in which they did not view the disclosure website. They also were asked to search for and then rate trust in their own physician.Main measuresPrimary outcomes were trust in individual physician, medical profession, and industry. These scales measure trust as a composite of honesty, fidelity, competence, and global trust.Key resultsCompared to physicians who received no payments, physicians who received payments over $13,000 received lower ratings for honesty [mean (SD): 3.36 (0.86) vs. 2.75 (0.95), p < 0.001] and fidelity [3.19 (0.65) vs. 2.89 (0.68), p = 0.01]. Among the 7.9% of participants who found their own physician on the website, ratings for honesty and fidelity decreased as the industry payment to the physician increased (honesty: Spearman's ρ = -0.52, p = 0.02; fidelity: Spearman's ρ = -0.55, p = 0.01). Viewing the disclosure website did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or industry.ConclusionsDisclosure of industry payments to physicians affected perceptions of individual physician honesty and fidelity, but not perceptions of competence. Disclosure did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02179632 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02179632 ).

Project description:BackgroundEmergency medical care, including prehospital treatment, forms an important component of any healthcare system. Like most low-middle-income countries, Nepal has an emergency medical system that can be described as underdeveloped. Emergency physicians navigating this system may experience challenges or barriers in their treatment of patients. This study aimed to investigate physicians' perspectives on emergency and prehospital patient management in a low-income country, Nepal, and to understand the challenges and barriers they perceive in emergency treatment including both the prehospital treatment and the immediate in-hospital treatment at the emergency department.MethodsUsing a qualitative study, eight semi-structured interviews with physicians working in a Nepalese emergency department were performed. The interviews were conducted between September and November 2021 and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were subsequently analyzed using the systematic text condensation method.ResultsFour main themes and associated sub-themes were identified: (1) patients' sociocultural, educational, and financial factors (such as financial issues and financial inequality) and regional differences; (2) emergency department's organization and resources concerning human and material resources, protocols, and guidelines; (3) problems with the emergency department (ED) service's qualities and availability caused by an insufficient integration of the ED and the EMS, prehospital resources, and financial interests in the EMS; and (4) surrounding healthcare system's impact on the ED where, especially, the levels of organized primary care, governmental responsibilities, and healthcare structure were addressed.ConclusionsThe physicians identified numerous regularly encountered challenges and barriers. These challenges stretched beyond the ED and into various aspects of society. The patients' financial problems were described as the greatest problem, restricting the treatment due to a given patient's inability or unwillingness to pay for the required procedures. The physicians were thus restricted in completing their duties to the desired levels. The low quality of prehospital care and a lack of education and awareness of common diseases and symptoms in a significant proportion of patients were identified by many participants as being significant issues. The aforementioned challenges or barriers directly resulted in patients arriving in critical conditions that could have been avoided if the disease were treated earlier.

Project description:IntroductionWe determined if targeted education of emergency physicians (EPs) regarding the treatment of mental illness will improve their comfort level in treating psychiatric patients boarding in the emergency department (ED) awaiting admission.MethodsWe performed a pilot study examining whether an educational intervention would change an EP's comfort level in treating psychiatric boarder patients (PBPs). We identified a set of psychiatric emergencies that typically require admission or treatment beyond the scope of practice of emergency medicine. Diagnoses included major depression, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar affective disorder, general anxiety disorder, suicidal ideation, and criminal behavior. We designed equivalent surveys to be used before and after an educational intervention. Each survey consisted of 10 scenarios of typical psychiatric patients. EPs were asked to rate their comfort levels in treating the described patients on a visual analogue scale. We calculated summary scores for the non intervention survey group (NINT) and intervention survey group (INT) and compared them using Student's t-test.ResultsSeventy-nine percent (33/42) of eligible participants completed the pre-intervention survey (21 attendings, 12 residents) and comprised the NINT group. Fifty-five percent (23/42) completed the post-intervention survey (16 attendings, 7 residents) comprising the INT group. A comparison of summary scores between 'NINT' and 'INT' groups showed a highly significant improvement in comfort levels with treating the patients described in the scenarios (P = 0.003). Improvements were noted on separate analysis for faculty (P = 0.039) and for residents (P = 0.012). Results of a sensitivity analysis excluding one highly significant scenario showed decreased, but still important differences between the NINT and INT groups for all participants and for residents, but not for faculty (all: P = 0.05; faculty: P = 0.25; residents: P = 0.03).ConclusionThis pilot study suggests that the comfort level of EPs, when asked to treat PBPs, may be improved with education. We believe our data support further study of this idea and of whether an improved comfort level will translate to a willingness to treat.