Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38113928›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2023

Public awareness of and opinions on the use of mathematical transmission modelling to inform public health policy in the United Kingdom.

Ruth McCabe, Christl A Donnelly

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ruth McCabeDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6368-9103
Christl A DonnellyDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0195-2463
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mathematical modelling is used to inform public health policy, particularly so during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the public are key stakeholders, understanding the public perceptions of these tools is vital. To complement our previous study on the science-policy interface, novel survey data were collected via an online panel ('representative' sample) and social media ('non-probability' sample). Many questions were asked twice, in reference to the period 'prior to' (retrospectively) and 'during' the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents reported being increasingly aware of modelling in informing policy during the pandemic, with higher levels of awareness among social media respondents. Modelling informing policy was perceived as more reliable during the pandemic than in reference to the pre-pandemic period in both samples. Trust in government public health advice remained high within both samples but was lower during the pandemic in comparison with the (retrospective) pre-pandemic period. The decay in trust was greater among social media respondents. Many respondents explicitly made the distinction that their trust was reserved for 'scientists' and not 'politicians'. Almost all respondents believed governments have responsibility for communicating modelling to the public. These results provide a reminder of the skewed conclusions that could be drawn from non-representative samples.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Health PolicyHumansPandemicsPublic HealthRetrospective StudiesUnited KingdomCOVID-19public opinionsamplingsurveyUK

Identifiers

PMID38113928
PMCPMC10730285
OpenAlexW4389976924

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.