Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35349583›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Lessons learned about willingness to adopt various protective measures during the early COVID-19 pandemic in three countries.

Ana Paula Santana, Lars Korn, Cornelia Betsch, Robert Böhm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Ana Paula SantanaDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6079-774X
Lars KornMedia and Communication Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Cornelia BetschMedia and Communication Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Robert BöhmDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6806-0374

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRegarding the COVID-19 pandemic, concerted efforts have been invested in research to investigate and communicate the importance of complying with protective behaviors, such as handwashing and mask wearing. Protective measures vary in how effective they are in protecting the individual against infection, how much experience people have with them, whether they provide individual or societal protection, and how they are perceived on these dimensions.

methodsThis study assessed the willingness to follow recommended measures, depending on these features, among participants from Germany (n = 333), Hong Kong (n = 367), and the U.S. (n = 495). From April 24th to May 1st, 2020, individuals completed an online survey that assessed the antecedents of interest.

resultsIt was shown that assumed effectiveness, previous experience, and intended self- and other-protection positively predicted willingness to comply across countries. When measures were mainly perceived as protecting others (vs. the self), individuals were less prone to adopt them. When a measure's effectiveness to protect the individual was perceived as lower, willingness to adopt the measure increased with higher levels of prior experience and collectivism. Moreover, protecting others was more strongly related to adoption when individuals had higher levels of collectivism and lower levels of individualism.

conclusionsEmphasizing the benefit for others could be a means to lower the potential detrimental effects of low assumed effectiveness for individual protection.

Indexed as

SARS-CoV-2COVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesHand DisinfectionHumansMasksPandemicsPersonal Protective Equipment

Identifiers

PMID35349583
PMCPMC8963567

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.