Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33591985›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Trust and transparency in times of crisis: Results from an online survey during the first wave (April 2020) of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK.

Luisa Enria, Naomi Waterlow, Nina Trivedy Rogers, Hannah Brindle, Sham Lal, Rosalind M Eggo, Shelley Lees, Chrissy H Roberts

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
161.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Post-Pandemic Surges in Public Trust in the United Kingdom.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    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
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luisa EnriaDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Naomi WaterlowDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology & Public Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Nina Trivedy RogersUCL Research Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Hannah BrindleDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious & Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Sham LalDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious & Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3650-1398
Rosalind M EggoDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology & Public Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0362-6717
Shelley LeesDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Chrissy H RobertsDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious & Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1064-5980
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe success of a government's COVID-19 control strategy relies on public trust and broad acceptance of response measures. We investigated public perceptions of the UK government's COVID-19 response, focusing on the relationship between trust and perceived transparency, during the first wave (April 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

methodsAnonymous survey data were collected (2020-04-06 to 2020-04-22) from 9,322 respondents, aged 20+ using an online questionnaire shared primarily through Facebook. We took an embedded-mixed-methods approach to data analysis. Missing data were imputed via multiple imputation. Binomial & multinomial logistic regression were used to detect associations between demographic characteristics and perceptions or opinions of the UK government's response to COVID-19. Structural topic modelling (STM), qualitative thematic coding of sub-sets of responses were then used to perform a thematic analysis of topics that were of interest to key demographic groups.

resultsMost respondents (95.1%) supported government enforcement of behaviour change. While 52.1% of respondents thought the government was making good decisions, differences were apparent across demographic groups, for example respondents from Scotland had lower odds of responding positively than respondents in London. Higher educational levels saw decreasing odds of having a positive opinion of the government response and decreasing household income associated with decreasing positive opinion. Of respondents who thought the government was not making good decisions 60% believed the economy was being prioritised over people and their health. Positive views on government decision-making were associated with positive views on government transparency about the COVID-19 response. Qualitative analysis about perceptions of government transparency highlighted five key themes: (1) the justification of opacity due to the condition of crisis, (2) generalised mistrust of politics, (3) concerns about the role of scientific evidence, (4) quality of government communication and (5) questions about political decision-making processes.

conclusionOur study suggests that trust is not homogenous across communities, and that generalised mistrust, concerns about the transparent use and communication of evidence and insights into decision-making processes can affect perceptions of the government's pandemic response. We recommend targeted community engagement, tailored to the experiences of different groups and a new focus on accountability and openness around how decisions are made in the response to the UK COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

AttitudeCommunicable Disease ControlPublic PolicyTrustCOVID-19HumansSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID33591985
PMCPMC7886216
OpenAlexW3132698639

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.