Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38867264›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Understanding the associations between information sources, sociodemographics, and views on public health measures: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria.

Peter Gamillscheg, Susanne Mayer, Monika Pietrzak-Franger, Carina Hilmar, Alina Lange, Judit Simon, Agata Łaszewska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  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

7 authors.

Peter GamillschegDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15/1, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID 0009-0002-4286-2285
Susanne MayerDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15/1, Vienna, 1090, Austria. susanne.mayer@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0002-4448-0478
Monika Pietrzak-FrangerDepartment of English and American Studies, University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 2, Hof 8.3 (Campus), Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Carina HilmarDepartment of English and American Studies, University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 2, Hof 8.3 (Campus), Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Alina LangeDepartment of English and American Studies, University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 2, Hof 8.3 (Campus), Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Judit SimonDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15/1, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9279-8627
Agata ŁaszewskaDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15/1, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6689-3708

Funding

Medizinische Universität Wien SO68900010Universität Wien SO68900010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThroughout the COVID-19 pandemic, it was a key priority for governments globally to ensure agreement with, and subsequently adherence to, imposed public health measures, specifically non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Prior research in this regard highlighted the role of COVID-19 information sources as well as sociodemographic and other personal characteristics, however, there is only limited evidence including both. To bridge this gap, this study investigated the associations of COVID-19 information sources such as social media and participant characteristics with agreement with and adherence to NPIs during the first lockdown in Austria.

methodsAn online survey was conducted in May 2020 among adult Austrian residents asking about their experiences during the first lockdown. Collected data included sociodemographic characteristics, main COVID-19-related information sources, agreement with/adherence to three NPIs (no physical contact to family members not living in the same household, leisurely walks restricted to members of the same household, mandatory face masks) and information about perceived social support using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), anxiety/depression levels using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), whether participants felt well advised by the government, and whether participants perceived the pandemic to threaten their income. Ordered and multinomial logistic regression models were employed to achieve the research aims.

resultsThe cross-sectional sample consisted of 559 Austrian residents. Using social media as main COVID-19 information source was consistently associated with lower agreement with NPIs. A positive association with agreement with measures was found for higher educational backgrounds and higher anxiety levels. By contrast, higher levels of depression, not feeling well advised by the government, and perceiving the pandemic as an economic threat were negatively associated with agreement with measures. Moreover, the use of social media as main COVID-19 information source and not feeling well advised by the government were associated with lower adherence to NPIs. By contrast, higher levels of education were associated with higher adherence.

conclusionsThis comprehensive analysis emphasizes the associations of COVID-19 information sources as well as sociodemographic and other participant characteristics with agreement with and adherence to NPIs, bearing important implications for future public health crisis communication strategies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaAdolescentAdultAgedAustriaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInformation SourcesMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPublic HealthSociodemographic FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsCOVID-19Information sourceNon-pharmaceutical interventionPublic health measureSociodemographic

Identifiers

PMID38867264
PMCPMC11167807

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.