Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39920594›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

From information to action: modelling social and cognitive factors in health decisions.

Jiadong Yu, D A Bekerian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Jiadong YuCalifornia School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, Fresno, CA, 93727, USA. jyu1@alliant.edu.
D A BekerianCalifornia School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, Fresno, CA, 93727, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study examines the social and cognitive factors influencing health decisions to adopt protective behaviors in a U.S. SAMPLE: A theoretical framework was developed, incorporating key variables such as perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, use of formal and informal health information, conspiracy beliefs, and political ideology. The protective behaviors studied included mask-wearing and vaccination intentions.

methodsThis study employed a cross-sectional design to explore how cognitive appraisals and socio-political factors influence health decisions. Data were collected from 742 U.S.-based participants via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) between January 28-30, 2023.

resultsPerceived vulnerability and perceived severity had distinct effects on information source preferences. Reliance on formal sources positively correlated with compliance behaviors such as mask-wearing and vaccination, while perceived severity strongly predicted mask adherence. In contrast, perceived vulnerability was associated with conspiracy beliefs and informal information use. Notably, fear of COVID-19 did not significantly influence health behaviors. Instead, political ideology and conspiracy beliefs played a more dominant role, emphasizing the importance of integrating socio-political factors into traditional health behavior models.

conclusionsUnderstanding the complex interplay of cognitive and socio-political factors is crucial for developing effective public health strategies to enhance compliance with health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic and future crises.

Indexed as

CognitionCOVID-19Decision MakingHealth BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMasksMiddle AgedPoliticsSARS-CoV-2United StatesCognitive predictorsCOVID-19Health decisionsProtective behaviorsSocial psychological predictors

Identifiers

PMID39920594
PMCPMC11806782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.