The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been mirrored by diffusion of misinformation and conspiracy theories about its origins (such as 5G cellular networks) and the motivations ...of preventive measures like vaccination, social distancing, and face masks (for example, as a political ploy). These beliefs have resulted in substantive, negative real-world outcomes but remain largely unstudied.
This was a cross-sectional, online survey (n=660). Participants were asked about the believability of five selected COVID-19 narratives, their political orientation, their religious commitment, and their trust in science (a 21-item scale), along with sociodemographic items. Data were assessed descriptively, then latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups with similar believability profiles. Bivariate (ANOVA) analyses were run, then multivariable, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with membership in specific COVID-19 narrative believability profiles.
For the full sample, believability of the narratives varied, from a low of 1.94 (SD=1.72) for the 5G narrative to a high of 5.56 (SD=1.64) for the zoonotic (scientific consensus) narrative. Four distinct belief profiles emerged, with the preponderance (70%) of the sample falling into Profile 1, which believed the scientifically accepted narrative (zoonotic origin) but not the misinformed or conspiratorial narratives. Other profiles did not disbelieve the zoonotic explanation, but rather believed additional misinformation to varying degrees. Controlling for sociodemographics, political orientation and religious commitment were marginally, and typically non-significantly, associated with COVID-19 belief profile membership. However, trust in science was a strong, significant predictor of profile membership, with lower trust being substantively associated with belonging to Profiles 2 through 4.
Belief in misinformation or conspiratorial narratives may not be mutually exclusive from belief in the narrative reflecting scientific consensus; that is, profiles were distinguished not by belief in the zoonotic narrative, but rather by concomitant belief or disbelief in additional narratives. Additional, renewed dissemination of scientifically accepted narratives may not attenuate belief in misinformation. However, prophylaxis of COVID-19 misinformation might be achieved by taking concrete steps to improve trust in science and scientists, such as building understanding of the scientific process and supporting open science initiatives.
The social media account for Steak-umm, a frozen food product, achieved notoriety in 2020 for its messages about how to evaluate the quality of information. Bogomoletc and Lee proposed that the ...positive reaction to these messages being posted by a brand account resulted from expectancy violations and verified their idea with an analysis of 1,000 randomly selected tweets responding to Steak-umm's tweets. This comment responds to their work from a public health perspective and asks whether the expectancies that were violated were also those of nonscientists in general, allowing the tweets to serve as relief amidst a cavalcade of misinformation about COVID-19.
The emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and subsequent pandemic has led to the most substantive large-scale, open, and public social discussion of epidemiology and science in recent ...history. In the United States (US), extensive debate has ensued as to the risk posed by the disease, whether the health system is prepared to manage a high volume of critical cases, whether any number of public health responses are necessary and appropriate, and the appropriate ways to prevent, manage, and treat the pandemic. I hypothesized that the interplay between scientists, policymakers, and the public in an open forum was associated with increased overall public trust in science and scientists, but that this was moderated by political orientation and/or religious commitment. In the context of a public health emergency, it is important to understand the degree to which science and scientists are trusted to produce information that can provide reassurance and also can explain the details of a highly complex event such as a viral pandemic while providing actionable recommendations.
The study design was analytic cross-sectional.
Data were obtained on March 17–18, 2020, from a sample of 242 US-based Amazon Mechanical Turk users. Respondents completed a 49-question survey consisting of key sociodemographic variables, political affiliation, religious commitment, and two iterations of the Trust in Science and Scientist Inventory (one for March 2020, and one for December 2019 using retrospective recall). Changes in mean level of trust and interaction with political affiliation and/or religious commitment were assessed using mixed ANOVA via the general linear model.
On a scale from 1 (low trust) to 5 (high trust), the mean level of trust in science and scientists was static; 3.82 in December 2019 and 3.81 in March 2020. Conservative political orientation and high religious commitment were associated with significantly less overall trust in science; the interaction effect suggested that liberal trust in science decreased slightly from December 2019 to March 2020, whereas conservative trust increased slightly.
Counter to my expectations, the overall level of trust in science remained static after the first several months of COVID-19 in the US, although there is some evidence that political orientation was associated with magnitude and directionality of change in trust. Continued examination of these trends is important for understanding public response to epidemiologic recommendations.
•Overall public trust in science and scientists in the United States did not shift between December 2019 and March 2020.•Political orientation and religious commitment were associated with overall trust in science and scientists.•Conservatives reported slightly more trust and liberals slightly less trust in science in March 2020 than in December 2019.
Background
Trust in science meaningfully contributes to our understanding of people’s belief in misinformation and their intentions to take actions to prevent COVID-19. However, no experimental ...research has sought to intervene on this variable to develop a scalable response to the COVID-19 infodemic.
Objective
Our study examined whether brief exposure to an infographic about the scientific process might increase trust in science and thereby affect belief in misinformation and intention to take preventive actions for COVID-19.
Methods
This two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit a US representative sample of 1000 adults by age, race/ethnicity, and gender using the Prolific platform. Participants were randomly assigned to view either an intervention infographic about the scientific process or a control infographic. The intervention infographic was designed through a separate pilot study. Primary outcomes were trust in science, COVID-19 narrative belief profile, and COVID-19 preventive behavioral intentions. We also collected 12 covariates and incorporated them into all analyses. All outcomes were collected using web-based assessment.
Results
From January 22, 2021 to January 24, 2021, 1017 participants completed the study. The intervention slightly improved trust in science (difference-in-difference 0.03, SE 0.01, t1000=2.16, P=.031). No direct intervention effect was observed on belief profile membership, but there was some evidence of an indirect intervention effect mediated by trust in science (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, SE 0.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.12, z=2.01, P=.045) on membership in the “scientific” profile compared with the others. No direct nor indirect effects on preventive behaviors were observed.
Conclusions
Briefly viewing an infographic about science appeared to cause a small aggregate increase in trust in science, which may have, in turn, reduced the believability of COVID-19 misinformation. The effect sizes were small but commensurate with our 60-second, highly scalable intervention approach. Researchers should study the potential for truthful messaging about how science works to serve as misinformation inoculation and test how best to do so.
Trial Registration
NCT04557241; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04557241
International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)
RR2-10.2196/24383
Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) to laypersons are key approaches to reduce the incidence of opioid-involved overdoses. While some research has examined attitudes toward OEND, ...especially among pharmacists and first responders, our understanding of what laypersons believe about overdose and naloxone is surprisingly limited. Further, some scholars have expressed concerns about the prevalence of non-evidence-based beliefs about overdose and naloxone. We designed this study to analyze the prevalence, nature, and context of beliefs about naloxone and overdose among U.S. laypersons.
We conducted a cross-sectional study (n = 702) using Prolific.co (representative of the U.S. population by age, gender, and race). Primary outcomes were the believability of six statements about overdose/naloxone on a seven-point Likert-type scale. Five statements were unsupported, and one was supported, by current scientific evidence. We used latent profile analysis to classify participants into belief groups, then used regression to study correlates of profile classification.
Believability of the statements (7: extremely believable) ranged from m = 5.57 (SD = 1.38) for a scientifically supported idea (trained bystanders can reverse overdose with naloxone), to m = 3.33 (SD = 1.83) for a statement claiming opioid users can get high on naloxone. Participants were classified into three latent belief profiles: Profile 1 (most aligned with current evidence; n = 246), Profile 2 (moderately aligned; n = 351), and Profile 3 (least aligned, n = 105). Compared to Profile 1, several covariates were associated with categorization into Profiles 2 and 3, including lower trust in science (RRR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.24-0.54; RRR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.12-0.36, respectively), conservative political orientation (RRR = 1.41, 95%CI = 1.23-1.63; 3:RRR = 1.62, 95%CI = 1.35-1.95, respectively), and never being trained about naloxone (Profile 3: RRR = 3.37, 95%CI = 1.16-9.77).
Preliminary evidence suggests some U.S. laypersons simultaneously believe that bystander overdose prevention with naloxone can prevent overdose and one or more scientifically unsupported claims about naloxone/overdose. Categorization into clusters displaying such belief patterns was associated with low trust in science, conservative political orientation, and not having been trained about naloxone.
This cross-sectional study was preregistered prior to any data collection using the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/c6ufv.
Background:
Tobacco retailers have an important role to play in reducing access to tobacco among youth, but in the USA, their role has become more complicated because of recent developments in ...policies and industry, such as the Indiana Tobacco-21 law and the rising popularity of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) products. This study aimed to explore Indiana retailers’ knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to the prevention of underage sales of tobacco and ENDS products and identify retailers’ needs for further education and training.
Methods:
The study involved a secondary analysis of anonymous cross-sectional data from the 2020 Indiana Tobacco Compliance Survey conducted by the Indiana Division of Mental Health and Addiction (DMHA). Managers and owners of retail stores who sold tobacco or ENDS products (i.e., large corporate-owned stores and smaller venues such as tobacco shops, vapour shops, and convenience stores) were eligible for inclusion. Records of retailers’ tobacco certificates were utilised for random sampling. Subgroup comparisons were conducted using chi-square tests.
Results:
The survey sample (n = 102) included participants from all 10 DMHA planning regions in Indiana and all types of tobacco retail stores. Many retailers did not know about or understand the negative impacts of ENDS products on young people or existing regulations to minimise these impacts and the Indiana State Tobacco-21 law. Retailers in larger stores had a greater objective knowledge and reported more frequent prevention programme utilisation than smaller stores (e.g., by means of ‘We Card’).
Conclusions:
Underage tobacco sale prevention procedures varied significantly, but resources such as ‘We Card’ and ‘This is Our Watch’ were more popular than alternatives. Retailers reported a need for more convenient education and training options on how to check photo identification and refuse sales to minors.
Scientists often make cognitive claims (eg, the results of their work) and normative claims (eg, what should be done based on those results). Yet, these types of statements contain very different ...information and implications. This randomized controlled trial sought to characterize the granular effects of using normative language in science communication.
Our study examined whether viewing a social media post containing scientific claims about face masks for COVID-19 using both normative and cognitive language (intervention arm) would reduce perceptions of trust and credibility in science and scientists compared with an identical post using only cognitive language (control arm). We also examined whether effects were mediated by political orientation.
This was a 2-arm, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 1500 US adults (age 18+) from the Prolific platform who were representative of the US population census by cross sections of age, race/ethnicity, and gender. Participants were randomly assigned to view 1 of 2 images of a social media post about face masks to prevent COVID-19. The control image described the results of a real study (cognitive language), and the intervention image was identical, but also included recommendations from the same study about what people should do based on the results (normative language). Primary outcomes were trust in science and scientists (21-item scale) and 4 individual items related to trust and credibility; 9 additional covariates (eg, sociodemographics, political orientation) were measured and included in analyses.
From September 4, 2022, to September 6, 2022, 1526 individuals completed the study. For the sample as a whole (eg, without interaction terms), there was no evidence that a single exposure to normative language affected perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists. When including the interaction term (study arm × political orientation), there was some evidence of differential effects, such that individuals with liberal political orientation were more likely to trust scientific information from the social media post's author if the post included normative language, and political conservatives were more likely to trust scientific information from the post's author if the post included only cognitive language (β=0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10; P=.04).
This study does not support the authors' original hypotheses that single exposures to normative language can reduce perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists for all people. However, the secondary preregistered analyses indicate the possibility that political orientation may differentially mediate the effect of normative and cognitive language from scientists on people's perceptions. We do not submit this paper as definitive evidence thereof but do believe that there is sufficient evidence to support additional research into this topic, which may have implications for effective scientific communication.
OSF Registries osf.io/kb3yh; https://osf.io/kb3yh.
RR2-10.2196/41747.
Background There is high level policy consensus in India that community engagement (CE) improves vaccination uptake and reduces burden of vaccine preventable diseases. However, to date, vaccination ...studies in the country have not explicitly focused on CE as an outcome in and of itself. Therefore, this study sought to examine the barriers and enablers of community engagement for vaccination in India. Methods Employing qualitative methods, twenty-five semi-structured elite interviews among vaccine decisionmakers' were triangulated with twenty-four national-level vaccine policy documents and researcher field notes (December 2017 to February 2018). Data collected for this study included perceptions and examples of enablers of and barriers to CE for vaccination uptake. Concepts, such as the absence of formal procedures or data collection approaches related to CE, were confirmed during document review, and a final convening to review study results was conducted with study respondents in December 2018 and January 2019 to affirm the general set of findings from this study. The Social Ecological Model (SEM) was used to organize and interpret the study findings. Results Although decisionmakers and policy documents generally supported CE, there were more CE barriers than facilitators in the context of vaccination, which were identified at all social-ecological levels. Interviews with vaccine decisionmakers in India revealed complex systemic and structural factors which affect CE for vaccination and are present across each of the SEM levels, from individual to policy. Policy-level enablers included decisionmakers' political will for CE and policy documents and interviews highlighted social mobilization, whereas barriers were lack of a CE strategy document and a broad understanding of CE by decisionmakers. At the community level, dissemination of Social-behavioral Change Communication (SBCC) materials from the national-level to the states was considered a CE facilitator, while class, and caste-based power relations in the community, lack of family-centric CE strategies, and paternalistic attitude of decisionmakers toward communities (the latter reported by some NGO heads) were considered CE barriers. At the organizational level, partnerships with local organizations were considered CE enablers, while lack of institutionalized support to formalize and incentivize these partnerships highlighted by several decisionmakers, were barriers. At the interpersonal level, SBCC training for healthcare workers, sensitive messaging to communities with low vaccine confidence, and social media messaging were considered CE facilitators. The lack of strategies to manage vaccine related rumors or replicate successful CE interventions during the during the introduction and rollout of new vaccines were perceived as CE barriers by several decisionmakers. Conclusion Data obtained for this study highlighted national-level perceptions of the complexities and challenges of CE across the entire SEM, from individual to systemic levels. Future studies should attempt to associate these enablers and barriers with actual CE outcomes, such as participation or community support in vaccine policy-making, CE implementation for specific vaccines and situations (such as disease outbreaks), or frequency of sub-population-based incidents of community resistance and community facilitation to vaccination uptake. There would likely be value in developing a population-based operational definition of CE, with a step-by-step manual on 'how to do CE.' The data from this study also indicate the importance of including CE indicators in national datasets and developing a compendium documenting CE best-practices. Doing so would allow more rigorous analysis of the evidence-base for CE for vaccination in India and other countries with similar immunization programs.
Social media is an important information source for a growing subset of the population and can likely be leveraged to provide insight into the evolving drug overdose epidemic. Twitter can provide ...valuable insight into trends, colloquial information available to potential users, and how networks and interactivity might influence what people are exposed to and how they engage in communication around drug use.
This exploratory study was designed to investigate the ways in which unsupervised machine learning analyses using natural language processing could identify coherent themes for tweets containing substance names.
This study involved harnessing data from Twitter, including large-scale collection of brand name (N=262,607) and street name (N=204,068) prescription drug-related tweets and use of unsupervised machine learning analyses (ie, natural language processing) of collected data with data visualization to identify pertinent tweet themes. Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) with coherence score calculations was performed to compare brand (eg, OxyContin) and street (eg, oxys) name tweets.
We found people discussed drug use differently depending on whether a brand name or street name was used. Brand name categories often contained political talking points (eg, border, crime, and political handling of ongoing drug mitigation strategies). In contrast, categories containing street names occasionally referenced drug misuse, though multiple social uses for a term (eg, Sonata) muddled topic clarity.
Content in the brand name corpus reflected discussion about the drug itself and less often reflected personal use. However, content in the street name corpus was notably more diverse and resisted simple LDA categorization. We speculate this may reflect effective use of slang terminology to clandestinely discuss drug-related activity. If so, straightforward analyses of digital drug-related communication may be more difficult than previously assumed. This work has the potential to be used for surveillance and detection of harmful drug use information. It also might be used for appropriate education and dissemination of information to persons engaged in drug use content on Twitter.
Multiple national and international studies of college student COVID-19 vaccination have been recently published, providing important descriptive information and a conceptual basis to inform future ...decisions about infectious disease prevention in higher education settings. Yet almost no research has examined Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTIs), which occupy a unique space in US higher education in terms of structure and students served. To address that gap, this report describes results from a two-wave cross-sectional survey administered at a NASNTI in Durango, Colorado, as part of a larger study of COVID-19 campus response. Surveys were administered prior to (wave one) and following (wave two) statewide availability of the COVID-19 vaccine for ages 16+. Comparisons between waves used Cramer's V and Mann-Whitney U tests. A total of 283 students responded to wave one, and 186 responded to wave two. Notable results included a self-reported COVID-19 vaccination rate (40.1%) at wave one that far exceeded parallel national rates. Injunctive and disjunctive normative beliefs were also less supportive of vaccination among the unvaccinated at wave two compared to wave one. Findings from this study should be considered in the context of all available evidence and not used to make inferences in isolation.
PDF
