Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40017882›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2023

Outsciencing the scientists: a cross-sectional mixed-methods investigation of public trust in scientists in seven European countries.

Leonardo W Heyerdahl, Yanina Borzykh, Benedetta Lana, Anna-Maria Volkmann, Lars Crusefalk, Elien Colman, Nastassia Tvardik, Sibyl Anthierens, Muriel Vray, Tamara Giles-Vernick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trust in scientists and doctors: The roles of faith, politics, education and gender.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Leonardo W Heyerdahl *Global Health, Institut Pasteur/Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Yanina Borzykh *Global Health, Institut Pasteur/Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Benedetta LanaGlobal Health, Institut Pasteur/Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Anna-Maria VolkmannAnthropology, University College London, London, UK.
Lars CrusefalkSociology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Elien ColmanDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Nastassia TvardikGlobal Health, Institut Pasteur/Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1768-187X
Sibyl AnthierensDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Muriel VrayGlobal Health, Institut Pasteur/Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Tamara Giles-VernickGlobal Health, Institut Pasteur/Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2873-8544

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In this era of global health crises, public trust in scientists is a crucial determinant of adherence to public health recommendations. Studies of trust in scientists often link sociodemographic and other factors to such adherence but rely on assumptions about scientists and neglect scientific uncertainty. We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods study evaluating factors associated with public trust of scientists in Europe, investigating how and why respondents embraced certain claims in scientific debates. Methods: A survey was administered to 7000 participants across seven European countries in December 2020. Data concerning sociodemographic characteristics, trust in scientists, information source preferences, COVID-19 experiences and beliefs about pandemic origins were analysed using a multiple regression model. We employed thematic analysis to interpret open-text responses about pandemic origins and likely acceptance of treatments and vaccination. Results: Trust in scientists was associated with multiple sociodemographic characteristics, including higher age and educational levels, left/centre political affiliation and use of certain information sources. Respondents claiming that COVID-19 was deliberately released and that 5G technology worsened COVID-19 symptoms had lower levels of trust in scientists. Explaining their positions in debates about pandemic origins, respondents trusting and not trusting scientists invoked scientific results and practices, arguing that scientists were not the most important actors in these debates. Conclusions: Although our quantitative analyses align with prior studies, our qualitative analyses of scientists, their practices and perceived roles are more varied than prior research presumed. Further investigation of these variations is needed to strengthen scientific literacy and trust in scientists.

Indexed as

COVID-19EpidemicsPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID40017882
PMCPMC11812721

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.