ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2023
Preferred Information Source Correlates to COVID-19 Risk Misperception.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for tackling fake news in healthcare: a complex approach from a nursing perspective.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2026Article
- Community Actions and Insights in the Battle against COVID-19 at the Start of the Pandemic: A District Study Observation from Medan, Indonesia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Perceived risk, political polarization, and the willingness to follow COVID-19 mitigation guidelines.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inaccurate perceptions of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) risk may decrease compliance with public health mitigation practices, in turn increasing disease burden. The extent to which public perceptions of COVID-19 risk are inaccurate is not well studied. This study investigates the relationship between preferred information sources and inaccurate COVID-19 risk perception. A cross-sectional online survey of adults in the United States using online snowball techniques was administered between April 9, 2020 and July 12, 2020. Raking techniques were used to generate a representative U.S. sample from 10,650 respondents. Respondents who did not provide an answer to key questions were excluded. The remaining sample included 1,785 health care workers (HCW) and 4,843 non-HCW. Subjective risk was measured as the product of perceived likelihood of COVID-19 infection and perceived harm from infection. Objective risk was measured as a function of the presence of known COVID-19 risk factors. Discrepancies between subjective and objective risk were compared between respondents with different preferred information sources. Chi Square contingency tables and pair-wise correlation were used to evaluate differences to 95% confidence. For HCW and non-HCW, the greatest overestimation of personal COVID-19 risk assessment (
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.