ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Exploring the Singapore general population's trust in COVID-19 information from different sources and its association with perceived risk of infection during the pandemic.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The degree of public trust in the government's competence is crucial in preventing the spread of misinformation and reducing psychological distress during a pandemic. The study aimed to (i) explore the trust in COVID-19 information from different sources and trust in the ability of the World Health Organization (WHO), government departments and related institutions in handling the epidemic in Singapore and (ii) its association with perceived risk of infection among Singapore residents. Methods: A total of 1,129 participants (aged 21 and above) were recruited from a cross-sectional study examining the well-being and resilience of Singapore's population between May 2020 to June 2021. Trust in COVID-19 information from different sources was measured on a 10-point scale and an ordinal 7-point scale was used for perceived risk of infection. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression model were conducted. Results: 85.5% reported high trust in COVID-19 information from the government and their ability in handling the pandemic. Participants also reported high trust in COVID-19 information from local public health or infectious disease experts (84.4%) and traditional media (77.2%). Low trust in the ability of government departments and related institutions was associated with higher future (1 month) perceived risk of infection (OR: 5.7, 95% CI 1.02-32.45) and low trust in social media was associated with higher current perceived risk of infection (OR: 2.4, 95% CI 1.09-5.24). Discussion: The present study provided insight on the level of trust on COVID-19 information from different sources and its associated perceived risks of infection. Future qualitative studies are recommended to facilitate better understanding of public trust and identify strategies for how it can be effectively addressed to support future public health responses.
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.