Dataset Information

Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT: With recurring waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, a dilemma facing public health leadership is whether to provide public advice that is medically optimal (e.g., most protective against infection if followed), but unlikely to be adhered to, or advice that is less protective but is more likely to be followed. To provide insight about this dilemma, we examined and quantified public perceptions about the tradeoff between (a) the stand-alone value of health behavior advice, and (b) the advice's adherence likelihood. In a series of studies about preference for public health leadership advice, we asked 1061 participants to choose between (5) strict advice that is medically optimal if adhered to but which is less likely to be broadly followed, and (2) relaxed advice, which is less medically effective but more likely to gain adherence-given varying infection expectancies. Participants' preference was consistent with risk aversion. Offering an informed choice alternative that shifts volition to advice recipients only strengthened risk aversion, but also demonstrated that informed choice was preferred as much or more than the risk-averse strict advice.

SUBMITTER: Nov O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8569172 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nov Oded O Dove Graham G Balestra Martina M Lawrence Katharine K Mann Devin D Wiesenfeld Batia B

Scientific reports 20211104 1

With recurring waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, a dilemma facing public health leadership is whether to provide public advice that is medically optimal (e.g., most protective against infection if followed), but unlikely to be adhered to, or advice that is less protective but is more likely to be followed. To provide insight about this dilemma, we examined and quantified public perceptions about the tradeoff between (a) the stand-alone value of health behavior advice, and (b) the advice's adherenc ...[more]

PMID: 34737373

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEffective communication is crucial during health crises, and social media has become a prominent platform for public health experts (PHEs) to share information and engage with the public. At the same time, social media also provides a platform for pseudoexperts who may spread contrarian views. Despite the importance of social media, key elements of communication, such as the use of moral or emotional language and messaging strategy, particularly during the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, have not been explored.ObjectiveThis study aimed to analyze how PHEs and pseudoexperts communicated with the public during the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. We focused on the emotional and moral language used in their messages on various COVID-19 pandemic-related topics. We also analyzed their interactions with political elites and the public's engagement with PHEs to gain a deeper understanding of their influence on public discourse.MethodsFor this observational study, we gathered a dataset of >539,000 original posts or reposts from 489 PHEs and 356 pseudoexperts on Twitter (subsequently rebranded X) from January 2020 to January 2021, along with the replies to the original posts from the PHEs. We identified the key issues that PHEs and pseudoexperts prioritized. We also determined the emotional and moral language in both the original posts and the replies. This allows us to characterize priorities for PHEs and pseudoexperts as well as differences in messaging strategy between these 2 groups. We also evaluated the influence of PHEs' language and strategy on the public response.ResultsOur analyses revealed that PHEs focused more on masking, health care, education, and vaccines, whereas pseudoexperts discussed therapeutics and lockdowns more frequently (P<.001). PHEs typically used positive emotional language across all issues (P<.001), expressing optimism and joy. Pseudoexperts often used negative emotions of pessimism and disgust, while limiting positive emotional language to origins and therapeutics (P<.001). Along the dimensions of moral language, PHEs and pseudoexperts differed on care versus harm and authority versus subversion across different issues. Negative emotional and moral language tends to boost engagement in COVID-19 discussions across all issues. However, the use of positive language by PHEs increases the use of positive language in the public responses. PHEs act as liberal partisans: they express more positive affect in their posts directed at liberals and more negative affect in their posts directed at conservative elites. In contrast, pseudoexperts act as conservative partisans. These results provide nuanced insights into the elements that have polarized the COVID-19 discourse.ConclusionsUnderstanding the nature of the public response to PHEs' messages on social media is essential for refining communication strategies during health crises. Our findings underscore the importance of using moral-emotional language strategically to reduce polarization and build trust.

Project description:BackgroundA variety of public health measures have been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada to reduce contact between individuals. The objective of this study was to provide empirical contact pattern data to evaluate the impact of public health measures, the degree to which social contacts rebounded to normal levels, as well as direct public health efforts toward age- and location-specific settings.MethodsFour population-based cross-sectional surveys were administered to members of a paid panel representative of Canadian adults by age, gender, official language, and region of residence during May (Survey 1), July (Survey 2), September (Survey 3), and December (Survey 4) 2020. A total of 4981 (Survey 1), 2493 (Survey 2), 2495 (Survey 3), and 2491 (Survey 4) respondents provided information about the age and setting for each direct contact made in a 24-h period. Contact matrices were constructed and contacts for those under the age of 18 years imputed. The next generation matrix approach was used to estimate the reproduction number (Rt) for each survey. Respondents with children under 18 years estimated the number of contacts their children made in school and extracurricular settings.ResultsEstimated Rt values were 0.49 (95% CI: 0.29-0.69) for May, 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.68) for July, 1.06 (95% CI: 0.63-1.52) for September, and 0.81 (0.47-1.17) for December. The highest proportion of reported contacts occurred within the home (51.3% in May), in 'other' locations (49.2% in July) and at work (66.3 and 65.4% in September and December). Respondents with children reported an average of 22.7 (95% CI: 21.1-24.3) (September) and 19.0 (95% CI 17.7-20.4) (December) contacts at school per day per child in attendance.ConclusionThe skewed distribution of reported contacts toward workplace settings in September and December combined with the number of reported school-related contacts suggest that these settings represent important opportunities for transmission emphasizing the need to support and ensure infection control procedures in both workplaces and schools.

Project description:BackgroundInformation on the public's preferences for current public health and social measures (PHSMs) and people's mental health under PHSMs is insufficient.ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify the public's preferences for varied PHSMs and measure the level of pandemic fatigue in the COVID-19 normalization stage in China.MethodsA nationwide cross-sectional study with a discrete choice experiment and psychometric scales was conducted to assess public preferences for and attitudes toward PHSMs, using the quota sampling method. The COVID-19 Pandemic Fatigue Scale (CPFS) was used to screen fatigue levels among respondents. The multinomial logit model, latent class model, and Mann-Whitney test were used for statistical analysis. We also conducted subgroup analysis based on sex, age, monthly income, mental health status, and pandemic fatigue status.ResultsA total of 689 respondents across China completed the survey. The discrete choice experiment revealed that respondents attached the greatest importance to the risk of COVID-19 infection within 3 months (45.53%), followed by loss of income within 3 months (30.69%). Vulnerable populations (low-income populations and elderly people) were more sensitive to the risk of infection, while younger respondents were more sensitive to income loss and preferred nonsuspension of social places and transportation. Migrants and those with pandemic fatigue had less acceptance of the mandatory booster vaccination and suspension of transportation. Additionally, a higher pandemic fatigue level was observed in female respondents, younger respondents, migrants, and relatively lower-income respondents (CPFS correlation with age: r=-0.274, P<.001; correlation with monthly income: r=-0.25, P<.001). Mandatory booster COVID-19 vaccination was also not preferred by respondents with a higher level of pandemic fatigue, while universal COVID-19 booster vaccination was preferred by respondents with a lower level of pandemic fatigue.ConclusionsPandemic fatigue is widely prevalent in respondents across China, and respondents desired the resumption of normal social life while being confronted with the fear of COVID-19 infection in the normalization stage of COVID-19 in China. During future pandemics, the mental burden and adherence of residents should be considered for the proper implementation of PHSMs.

Dataset Information

Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Publications

Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets