Trial reportSocial science & medicine (1982)2023
The efficacy of health experts' communication in inducing support for COVID-19 measures and effect on trustworthiness: A survey in Hong Kong.
Trial report in Social science & medicine (1982), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Priming COVID-19's consequences can increase support for investments in public health.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To control the spread of COVID-19, governments may implement freedoms-infringing health measures. Therefore, citizens' support for these measures is important. This study investigates: (1) whether health experts' communication induces support for COVID-19 measures, and (2) whether health experts' agreeing or disagreeing with government directives affects their trustworthiness. A cross-sectional online questionnaire was completed by 1072 adults in the Hong Kong general population between May 26 and June 3, 2021. Three COVID-19 measures were examined: contact-tracing mobile application, restriction-testing, and ban of public assembly. For each, participants were randomly assigned to three groups to view, respectively: vignettes with a neutral government announcement only; vignettes with a government announcement and a health expert's quote supporting the government's decision; and vignettes with a government announcement and a health expert's quote disagreeing with the government's decision. The result shows that positive health experts' communication increased the support for banning public assembly; no effects were found for the support for contact-tracing mobile applications and restriction testing. Participants who only viewed health experts disagreeing with the government had higher trust in health experts relative to participants who viewed health experts agreeing with the government at least once. The results render doubtful the strategy that health experts can be involved for garnering support for unpopular health measures without jeopardizing public trust in them.
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.