ArticlePloS one2026
Social inequalities in the misbelief of chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19: results from the EPICOVID-19 study in Brazil.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the dissemination of anti-science messages regarding COVID-19 in Brazil, specifically examining how social inequalities contributed to the misconception that chloroquine has a protective effect against the virus. STUDY
designThree countrywide population-based studies were conducted in 2020 (May 14-21, June 4-7, and June 21-24), including 133 Brazilian cities (N = 74,077).
methodsParticipants (≥20 years old) were asked whether they believed in chloroquine's protective effect against infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (no/yes/don't know). "Yes" and "don't know" answers were considered misconceptions (effect of denialism). A jeopardy index score was calculated to assess cumulative social deprivation based on sex, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic variables. Descriptive analysis and inequality measures (Slope Index of Inequality - SII; and Concentration Index) were used to evaluate the association between believing in chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19 and the jeopardy index. Multinomial logistic regression was used in the unadjusted and multivariable analysis.
resultsOverall, 47.6% of participants either believed that chloroquine prevented COVID-19 or stated, "I don't know." Marginalized racial and ethnicity groups, those with low education level, and those with low socioeconomic status were more likely to erroneously believe that chloroquine prevented COVID-19. The chance of lack of knowledge (Don't know) was higher (Odds Ratio: 2.57,CI95% 2.21; 2.99) among women, Black/Brown/East Asian/Indigenous, and among those in the lowest education level and wealth quartiles compared to men, white individuals, and those in the highest education and wealth quartiles. Absolute and relative inequalities were observed according to the jeopardy index. The highest absolute inequality was observed for the category "I don't know" (SII = -15.1).
conclusionsMisbelief in chloroquine's protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 was high in Brazil. People with greater social vulnerability were more likely to wrongly believe that chloroquine prevented COVID-19.
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.