ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Perceptions of COVID-19-related nudges in the Arab world: A cross-country analysis of approval rates and associated factors.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated novel approaches to influence public behavior. While "nudging" has gained prominence in Western contexts, its perception and effectiveness in the Arab world remain understudied. This study aimed to investigate the approval of COVID-19-related nudges across four Arab countries and explore associated sociodemographic factors. A cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2020 to January 2022, involving 698 participants from Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Participants were presented with eight hypothetical COVID-19-related nudges categorized according to distinct behavioral mechanisms: choice architecture (e.g., floor markers, prominent placement of fruits and vegetables), information disclosure (publicly sharing infection causes), moral appeals (letters from elderly urging compliance), social norm enforcement (public shaming of violators and use of spoilers on billboards), and surveillance-based interventions (GPS tracking of quarantined individuals). Approval rates varied widely (50%-95%). Less intrusive nudges received the highest support: supermarket floor markers (95.4%), prominent display of fruits and vegetables (88.8%), park area divisions (82.0%), infection cause disclosure (86.5%), and elderly letters urging compliance (84.1%). Approval was lower for more intrusive measures, including billboard spoilers (52.0%) and public shaming of curfew violators (49.9%). GPS tracking, the most intrusive intervention, received intermediate approval (72.8%). Higher COVID-19 concern was significantly associated with greater approval of nudges (p < 0.001), with age, gender, and family COVID-19 status also influencing approval rates. These findings demonstrate generally positive attitudes towards COVID-19-related nudges among university affiliates in four Arab countries, with clear variations according to nudge type, intrusiveness, and sociodemographic characteristics. While the results offer valuable insights for culturally tailored behavioral interventions in the Arab world, they reflect a university setting and may not be generalizable to the broader public.
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.