Repository logo
 

The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials.

Simple item page
cam.issuedOnline2021-11-17
dc.contributor.authorSchneider, Claudia R
dc.contributor.authorFreeman, Alexandra LJ
dc.contributor.authorSpiegelhalter, David
dc.contributor.authorvan der Linden, Sander
dc.contributor.orcidSchneider, Claudia R [0000-0002-6612-5186]
dc.contributor.orcidFreeman, Alexandra LJ [0000-0002-4115-161X]
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-07T16:51:22Z
dc.date.available2022-01-07T16:51:22Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.date.updated2022-01-07T16:51:22Z
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The quality of evidence about the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical health interventions is often low, but little is known about the effects of communicating indications of evidence quality to the public. METHODS: In two blinded, randomised, controlled, online experiments, US participants (total n = 2140) were shown one of several versions of an infographic illustrating the effectiveness of eye protection in reducing COVID-19 transmission. Their trust in the information, understanding, feelings of effectiveness of eye protection, and the likelihood of them adopting it were measured. FINDINGS: Compared to those given no quality cues, participants who were told the quality of the evidence on eye protection was 'low', rated the evidence less trustworthy (p = .001, d = 0.25), and rated it as subjectively less effective (p = .018, d = 0.19). The same effects emerged compared to those who were told the quality of the evidence was 'high', and in one of the two studies, those shown 'low' quality of evidence said they were less likely to use eye protection (p = .005, d = 0.18). Participants who were told the quality of the evidence was 'high' showed no statistically significant differences on these measures compared to those given no information about evidence quality. CONCLUSIONS: Without quality of evidence cues, participants responded to the evidence about the public health intervention as if it was high quality and this affected their subjective perceptions of its efficacy and trust in the provided information. This raises the ethical dilemma of weighing the importance of transparently stating when the evidence base is actually low quality against evidence that providing such information can decrease trust, perception of intervention efficacy, and likelihood of adopting it.
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.79842
dc.identifier.eissn1932-6203
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.otherPMC8598038
dc.identifier.other34788299
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/332396
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS)
dc.publisher.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259048
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceessn: 1932-6203
dc.sourcenlmid: 101285081
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectCOVID-19
dc.subjectCommunication
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectPublic Health
dc.titleThe effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials.
dc.typeArticle
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-10-11
prism.issueIdentifier11
prism.publicationNamePLoS One
prism.volume16
pubs.funder-project-idDavid And Claudia Harding Foundation (unknown)
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1371/journal.pone.0259048

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
article.pdf
Size:
1.7 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Licence
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Download

Collections

Jisc Publications Router