Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41604384›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Trust in science during the COVID-19 pandemic: A typology of internet users in South Africa.

Anne Reif, Lars Guenther, Monika Taddicken, Peter Weingart

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anne ReifUniversity of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4334-5909
Lars GuentherStellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Monika TaddickenTechnische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Peter WeingartStellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of public trust in science, particularly in contexts with diverse cultural backgrounds such as South Africa. Given the increasing reliance on digital science communication and the formation of sub-publics, understanding how different groups of individuals perceive and trust science in this unique setting is crucial for developing effective communication strategies and addressing potential challenges to public trust. This study investigates South Africans' trust in science and contact with science, as well as perceived changes in trust in science due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a survey among South African online users and latent profile analysis, we identified four population groups (n = 1,541) with varying levels of trust and frequency of contact with science: the fully trusting (30%), highly trusting (35%), moderately trusting (28%), and rather untrusting (8%). Differences in the patterns regarding the five theoretically derived dimensions of trust in science, namely expertise, integrity, benevolence, transparency and dialogue orientation, are subtle: Those who trust the most have particularly high values for benevolence; those who trust less place their highest value on expertise. Variations in self-perceived changes in trust in science resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic suggest differences among groups in how they interpret science communication. This could inform the development of targeted communication strategies. Furthermore, the results point to cultural specifics and indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has been a key event for public trust in science in South Africa.

Indexed as

COVID-19InternetScienceTrustAdultCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2South AfricaSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41604384
PMCPMC12851501

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.