ArticleTherapie
Does the public know when a scientific controversy is over? Public perceptions of hydroxychloroquine in France between April 2020 and June 2021.
Article in Therapie. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, chloroquine and its derivatives such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were widely commented upon both within the scientific community and in the media. This paper explores the different factors that influenced public perceptions in France of the efficacy of HCQ as well as their evolution between April 2020 and June 2021.
methodsThis article draws on 5 surveys conducted among representative samples of the French population (projects COCONEL and TRACTRUST; quota method, n=1006; 1004; 2006; 1014 and 1005). We asked questions on the effectiveness of chloroquine against COVID-19. We also collected sociodemographic variables and attitudes toward politics and science.
resultsBetween April and June 2021, the proportion of respondents who believed in the efficacy of HCQ decreased rapidly from 35% to 14%. The proportion of respondents who believed that HCQ is ineffective rose gradually from 6% to 21%. After adjusting for the temporal effect, the logistic regression showed a very strong association between political orientation and the belief in the efficacy of HCQ. Respondents who felt closest to the more radical parties (far-right and far-left) were more likely to believe in the efficacy of HCQ than those who felt closest to the political center (O.R. 2.48 [1.95-3.15] and 1.87 [1.44-2.43]). The role of trust in the government and in science and of the degree of political engagement were investigated in the two waves conducted after the scientific consensus was established during the summer of 2020. High levels of trust in the government and in science and of politicization are associated with belief of HCQ proven inefficacy. Across the whole period, a majority of respondents were uncertain. Even in 2021, 41.5% stated that the data were insufficient to decide whether or not HCQ is effective and 25.2% stating that they did not know.
conclusionBecause media coverage of scientific controversies is higher in times of uncertainty than after these controversies have died down, the publicization of therapeutic promises can have lasting consequences on attitudes towards science and medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.