Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33971855›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2021

A randomized controlled trial to test the effect of simplified guidance with visuals on comprehension of COVID-19 guidelines and intention to stay home if symptomatic.

Natalie Gold, Robin Watson, Dale Weston, Felix Greaves, Richard Amlôt

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Inclusive Crisis Communication in a Pandemic Context: A Rapid Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Natalie GoldPublic Health England Behavioural Insights, Public Health England, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8UG, UK. n.gold@lse.ac.uk.
Robin WatsonPublic Health England Behavioural Insights, Public Health England, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8UG, UK.
Dale WestonBehavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, Health Protection Directorate, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wilts, SP4 0JG, UK.
Felix GreavesDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, South Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Richard AmlôtBehavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, Health Protection Directorate, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wilts, SP4 0JG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative that people understand and comply with self-isolation guidelines. We tested whether a simplified version of the guidelines and a simplified version with visual aids would affect comprehension and intention to self-isolate during the containment phase of the pandemic in the UK, in March 2020, compared to the standard guidelines.

methodsWe conducted an online, three-armed parallel randomized controlled trial. Participants were English and over 18. The survey software randomized them into conditions; they were blind to condition. The control group read the 7-page standard guidelines (the current version at the time of the trial). The intervention groups were given either a 3-page simplified version, with a summary box on the front page and numbered bullet points, or the same simplified version with pictograms illustrating the points in the box. Primary outcomes were comprehension of the guidelines, as measured by the number of correct answers given to six questions about the content, and the proportion who answered that they would 'definitely' stay at home for 7 days if symptomatic.

findingsRecruitment was from 13 to 16 March 2020, with 1845 participants randomised and all data analysed. The Control group averaged 4.27 correct answers, the Simplified 4.20, and the Simplified + visual aids 4.13, out of a possible total of 6 correct answers. There were no differences in comprehension in the unadjusted models; however, when the model was adjusted for demographic variables, there was lower comprehension in the simplified + visual aids condition than in the control, (ß = - 0.16, p = 0.04998). There were no statistically significant differences in intention to stay home: Control was 85%, Simplified 83%, and Simplified + visual aids condition 84%.

conclusionSimplified guidance did not improve comprehension compared to the standard guidance issued in the containment phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and simplified guidance with visual aids may even have worsened comprehension. Simplified guidance had no effect on intention to stay home if symptomatic. This trial informed COVID-19 policy and provides insights relevant to guidance production in the acute phase of a major public health emergency.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsComprehensionHumansIntentionSARS-CoV-2Treatment OutcomeCoronavirusCOVID-19GuidelinesSimplificationText cohesion

Identifiers

PMID33971855
PMCPMC8108739

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.