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

<h4>Background</h4> 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. <h4>Methods</h4> In two blinded, randomised, cont...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Claudia R. Schneider, Alexandra L. J. Freeman, David Spiegelhalter, Sander van der Linden
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/10dc6f83311943838557e06ff4be64a9
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:10dc6f83311943838557e06ff4be64a9
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:10dc6f83311943838557e06ff4be64a92021-11-25T06:13:54ZThe effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials1932-6203https://doaj.org/article/10dc6f83311943838557e06ff4be64a92021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8598038/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4> 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. <h4>Methods</h4> 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. <h4>Findings</h4> 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. <h4>Conclusions</h4> 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.Claudia R. SchneiderAlexandra L. J. FreemanDavid SpiegelhalterSander van der LindenPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 11 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Claudia R. Schneider Alexandra L. J. Freeman David Spiegelhalter Sander van der Linden The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials
description	<h4>Background</h4> 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. <h4>Methods</h4> 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. <h4>Findings</h4> 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. <h4>Conclusions</h4> 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.
format	article
author	Claudia R. Schneider Alexandra L. J. Freeman David Spiegelhalter Sander van der Linden
author_facet	Claudia R. Schneider Alexandra L. J. Freeman David Spiegelhalter Sander van der Linden
author_sort	Claudia R. Schneider
title	The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials
title_short	The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials
title_full	The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials
title_fullStr	The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed	The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials
title_sort	effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about covid-19: two randomised controlled trials
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/10dc6f83311943838557e06ff4be64a9
work_keys_str_mv	AT claudiarschneider theeffectsofqualityofevidencecommunicationonperceptionofpublichealthinformationaboutcovid19tworandomisedcontrolledtrials AT alexandraljfreeman theeffectsofqualityofevidencecommunicationonperceptionofpublichealthinformationaboutcovid19tworandomisedcontrolledtrials AT davidspiegelhalter theeffectsofqualityofevidencecommunicationonperceptionofpublichealthinformationaboutcovid19tworandomisedcontrolledtrials AT sandervanderlinden theeffectsofqualityofevidencecommunicationonperceptionofpublichealthinformationaboutcovid19tworandomisedcontrolledtrials AT claudiarschneider effectsofqualityofevidencecommunicationonperceptionofpublichealthinformationaboutcovid19tworandomisedcontrolledtrials AT alexandraljfreeman effectsofqualityofevidencecommunicationonperceptionofpublichealthinformationaboutcovid19tworandomisedcontrolledtrials AT davidspiegelhalter effectsofqualityofevidencecommunicationonperceptionofpublichealthinformationaboutcovid19tworandomisedcontrolledtrials AT sandervanderlinden effectsofqualityofevidencecommunicationonperceptionofpublichealthinformationaboutcovid19tworandomisedcontrolledtrials
_version_	1718413967684009984

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

Ejemplares similares