ArticleBMC public health2026
Trust vs. knowledge during COVID-19: the dominance of trust in promoting preventive behaviours and its role in technology acceptance in Germany and India.
Article in BMC public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdherence to COVID-19 measures depended on a range of factors, including trust in authorities, knowledge of the virus, and public perception. This study compares Germany and India to examine the association of these factors on compliance and contributes to the debate between knowledge and trust. It also explores public acceptance of virus-deactivating technologies, which could reduce reliance on individual preventive behaviours and surveillance tools, offering new insights for pandemic response and public health strategies.
methodsData was collected through an online primary survey using stratified random sampling in India and Germany. The questionnaire consisted of five sections: socio-demographics, knowledge, trust, preventive behaviours, and technology acceptance. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics and statistical analyses of linear regression and ordinal logistic regression.
resultsAlmost all preventive behaviours were more frequent in India than in Germany, while German respondents had higher overall knowledge scores. The regression analysis showed no significant relationship between knowledge and trust in India. In contrast, Germany showed a weak positive association, indicating knowledge is modestly associated with trust, though other factors are also significant. The logistic regression analysis highlighted that trust was associated with all preventive behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic in India and Germany, consistently emerging as a significant factor. While socio-demographic factors like age, education, and income also predicted some behaviours, knowledge had only a limited association. Similar results were found for the acceptance of virus-deactivating air-purification technologies in both Germany and India. Specifically, UV-light-based air purification systems, seen as a potential replacement for measures like masks and school closures, showed high acceptance: 76% in Germany and 57% in India, suggesting a likelihood of real-world implementation.
conclusionsThis study adds to existing discussions on the role of knowledge, finding that trust showed a stronger association with adherence to COVID-19 measures. Comparing Germany and India, findings show that despite vast differences in healthcare systems and priorities, trust played a similarly crucial role in both contexts for preventive behaviours and acceptance of virus-deactivating technologies. Transparent communication, co-design and co-creation approaches, as well as reflexive socio-technical collaboration may support trust-building and improve public health strategies during crises.
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.