ArticlePNAS nexus2022
Transparent communication of evidence does not undermine public trust in evidence.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to shore up trust during the "cold-period" between pandemics - closing the public trust gap in pandemic preparedness frameworks.Global health action · 2026Article
- Benefits of childhood vaccines in ecological studies focusing on Germany: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Designing recruitment strategies for population-based human biomonitoring: evidence on participation and representativeness from Latvia.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Bridging functional bionanomaterials and the clinic: strategic communication as a translational enabler.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Editorial Perspective: Smoking, vaping and mental health - a perspective on potential causal mechanisms.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026Article
- Multi-level community dissemination of public health research: insights from the fuel to pot project case study in Kenya and Malawi.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Blurring evidence with advocacy: a systematic review of policy recommendations for net zero.npj environmental social sciences · 2026Article
- Prenatal therapies: a Points to Consider framework for responsible innovation.BMC medical genomics · 2025Review
- A commentary on measles vaccine in the context of outbreaks: Viral evolution, waning immunity and public trust.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Review
- Informed decisions about public health and social measures.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- "Public health without effective health communication is really nothing": Key informant interviews and thematic analysis as part of a multi-step research process to develop modernized public health communication competencies.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
- An agenda for science communication research and practice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Beyond Crisis Response: A Roundtable on Long-Term Strategies for Managing African Swine Fever.Viruses · 2025Article
- Article
- Evidence Communication Rules for Policy (ECR-P) critical appraisal tool.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Perceived experts are prevalent and influential within an antivaccine community on Twitter.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Finding common ground: Understanding and engaging with science mistrust in the Great barrier reef region.PloS one · 2024Article
- A plan for systematic reviews for high-need areas in forensic science.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Review
- What Affects Perceived Trustworthiness of Online Medical Information and Subsequent Treatment Decision Making? Randomized Trials on the Role of Uncertainty and Institutional Cues.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Does clear and transparent communication of risks, benefits, and uncertainties increase or undermine public trust in scientific information that people use to guide their decision-making? We examined the impact of reframing messages written in traditional persuasive style to align instead with recent "evidence communication" principles, aiming to inform decision-making: communicating a balance of risks and benefits, disclosing uncertainties and evidence quality, and prebunking misperceptions. In two pre-registered experiments, UK participants read either a persuasive message or a balanced and informative message adhering to evidence communication recommendations about COVID-19 vaccines (Study 1) or nuclear power plants (Study 2). We find that balanced messages are either perceived as trustworthy as persuasive messages (Study 1), or more so (Study 2). However, we note a moderating role of prior beliefs such that balanced messages were consistently perceived as more trustworthy among those with negative or neutral prior beliefs about the message content. We furthermore note that participants who had read the persuasive message on nuclear power plants voiced significantly stronger support for nuclear power than those who had read the balanced message, despite rating the information as less trustworthy. There was no difference in vaccination intentions between groups reading the different vaccine messages.
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.