Dataset Information

Communicating personalized risks from COVID-19: guidelines from an empirical study.

ABSTRACT: As increasing amounts of data accumulate on the effects of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the risk factors that lead to poor outcomes, it is possible to produce personalized estimates of the risks faced by groups of people with different characteristics. The challenge of how to communicate these then becomes apparent. Based on empirical work (total n = 5520, UK) supported by in-person interviews with the public and physicians, we make recommendations on the presentation of such information. These include: using predominantly percentages when communicating the absolute risk, but also providing, for balance, a format which conveys a contrasting (higher) perception of risk (expected frequency out of 10 000); using a visual linear scale cut at an appropriate point to illustrate the maximum risk, explained through an illustrative 'persona' who might face that highest level of risk; and providing context to the absolute risk through presenting a range of other 'personas' illustrating people who would face risks of a wide range of different levels. These 'personas' should have their major risk factors (age, existing health conditions) described. By contrast, giving people absolute likelihoods of other risks they face in an attempt to add context was considered less helpful. We note that observed effect sizes generally were small. However, even small effects are meaningful and relevant when scaled up to population levels.

SUBMITTER: Freeman ALJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8059635 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of the internet and web-based platforms to obtain public health information and manage health-related issues has become widespread in this digital age. The practice is so pervasive that the first reaction to obtaining health information is to "Google it." As SARS-CoV-2 broke out in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and quickly spread worldwide, people flocked to the internet to learn about the novel coronavirus and the disease, COVID-19. Lagging responses by governments and public health agencies to prioritize the dissemination of information about the coronavirus outbreak through the internet and the World Wide Web and to build trust gave room for others to quickly populate social media, online blogs, news outlets, and websites with misinformation and conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in people's deviant behaviors toward public health safety measures.ObjectiveThe goals of this study were to determine what people learned about the COVID-19 pandemic through web searches, examine any association between what people learned about COVID-19 and behavior toward public health guidelines, and analyze the impact of misinformation and conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic on people's behavior toward public health measures.MethodsThis infodemiology study used Google Trends' worldwide search index, covering the first 6 months after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (January 1 to June 30, 2020) when the public scrambled for information about the pandemic. Data analysis employed statistical trends, correlation and regression, principal component analysis (PCA), and predictive models.ResultsThe PCA identified two latent variables comprising past coronavirus epidemics (pastCoVepidemics: keywords that address previous epidemics) and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (presCoVpandemic: keywords that explain the ongoing pandemic). Both principal components were used significantly to learn about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 and explained 88.78% of the variability. Three principal components fuelled misinformation about COVID-19: misinformation (keywords "biological weapon," "virus hoax," "common cold," "COVID-19 hoax," and "China virus"), conspiracy theory 1 (ConspTheory1; keyword "5G" or "@5G"), and conspiracy theory 2 (ConspTheory2; keyword "ingest bleach"). These principal components explained 84.85% of the variability. The principal components represent two measurements of public health safety guidelines-public health measures 1 (PubHealthMes1; keywords "social distancing," "wash hands," "isolation," and "quarantine") and public health measures 2 (PubHealthMes2; keyword "wear mask")-which explained 84.7% of the variability. Based on the PCA results and the log-linear and predictive models, ConspTheory1 (keyword "@5G") was identified as a predictor of people's behavior toward public health measures (PubHealthMes2). Although correlations of misinformation (keywords "COVID-19," "hoax," "virus hoax," "common cold," and more) and ConspTheory2 (keyword "ingest bleach") with PubHealthMes1 (keywords "social distancing," "hand wash," "isolation," and more) were r=0.83 and r=-0.11, respectively, neither was statistically significant (P=.27 and P=.13, respectively).ConclusionsSeveral studies focused on the impacts of social media and related platforms on the spreading of misinformation and conspiracy theories. This study provides the first empirical evidence to the mainly anecdotal discourse on the use of web searches to learn about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundCommunicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion-a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether an "uncertainty-normalizing" communication strategy-aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic-can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values.MethodsIn an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies.ResultsThe communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19.ConclusionsCommunicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.

Dataset Information

Communicating personalized risks from COVID-19: guidelines from an empirical study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets