ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
COVID-19 and Masking Disparities: Qualitative Analysis of Trust on the CDC's Facebook Page.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This exploratory paper examines individual levels of risk assessment as impacting institutional trust in the CDC while also contributing to disparities in expressed willingness to mask early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Using both content and thematic analysis of the CDC's Facebook (FB) page from April 2020 and Gidden's modern risk society theory, I consider how social media (SM) users retrospectively perceived a dramatic change in public health (PH) advisory-from the CDC advising against masking in February 2020 (Time 1) to advising the use of "do-it-yourself" (DIY) cloth masking in April 2020 (Time 2)-through a lens of prior, self-guided research. Expressed "knowledge" of masking as preventative (or not) yielded unwavering and sometimes increasing distrust in the CDC based on user perception of the "correct" advisory, regardless of the CDC's position at Time 1 or Time 2. Simultaneously, disparities in masking behaviors appeared to be driven not by CDC guidance but by this same self-guided research. I show this via three themes: (1) claims of ineffectiveness for DIY masking (do not trust CDC now-no masking from the start); (2) conflict between the first and second CDC advisories on masking (do not trust CDC-either already masking anyway or will now); (3) disappointed in the CDC for length of time taken to make a DIY mask recommendation (do not trust CDC-either already masking anyway or will mask now). I discuss the imperative nature of two-way engagement with SM users by PH rather than using SM as a one-way mode of advisory dissemination. This and other recommendations may decrease disparities in preventative behaviors based on individual-level risk assessment as well as increase institutional trust and transparency.
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.