Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33225934›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

The impacts of knowledge, risk perception, emotion and information on citizens' protective behaviors during the outbreak of COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in China.

Liangwen Ning, Jinyu Niu, Xuejing Bi, Chao Yang, Ze Liu, Qunhong Wu, Ning Ning, Libo Liang, Aishu Liu, Yanhua Hao and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Liangwen NingSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Jinyu NiuSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Xuejing BiSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Chao YangHarbin Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Harbin, China.
Ze LiuSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Qunhong WuSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Ning NingSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Libo LiangSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Aishu LiuSchool of Education Science, Harbin Normal University, Harbin, China.
Yanhua HaoSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. hyhyjw@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0841-2291
Lijun GaoSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. gg73@163.com.
Chaojie LiuSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia.

Funding

National Natural Scientific Fund of China 71673072National Natural Scientific Fund of China 72042001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividual protective behaviors play an important role in the control of the spread of infectious diseases. This study aimed to investigate the adoption of protective behaviors by Chinese citizens amid the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated factors.

methodsAn online cross-sectional survey was conducted from 22 January to 14 February 2020 through Wenjuanxing platform, measuring their knowledge, risk perception, negative emotion, response to official communication, and protective behaviors in relation to COVID-19. A total of 3008 people completed the questionnaire, of which 2845 were valid questionnaires.

resultsOn average, 71% of respondents embraced protective behaviors. Those who made no error in the knowledge test (AOR = 1.77, p < 0.001) perceived the high severity of the epidemic (AOR = 1.90, p < 0.001), had high negative emotion (AOR = 1.36, p = 0.005), reported good health (AOR = 1.94, p < 0.001), paid high attention to the governmental media (AOR = 4.16, p < 0.001) and trusted the governmental media (AOR = 1.97, p < 0.001) were more likely to embrace protective behaviors after adjustments for variations in potential confounding factors. Women and older people were also more likely to embrace protective behaviors. No regional or educational differences were found in the adoption of protective behaviors.

conclusionThe majority of Chinese citizens embraced protective behaviors. Higher levels of protective behaviors are associated with higher knowledge, perceived severity, negative emotion, and attention to and trust in the official governmental media. Official governmental communication is the largest single predictor of protective behaviors.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultChinaConsumer Health InformationCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesEmotionsFemaleHumansMalePandemicsPneumonia, ViralRisk AssessmentBehaviorChinaCOVID-19PerceptionPublic health

Identifiers

PMID33225934
PMCPMC7681179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.