首选信息来源与 COVID-19 风险误解相关。

Emilia V Ezrina, Huamei Dong, Ray Block, Robert P Lennon
{"title":"首选信息来源与 COVID-19 风险误解相关。","authors":"Emilia V Ezrina, Huamei Dong, Ray Block, Robert P Lennon","doi":"10.3928/24748307-20230523-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inaccurate perceptions of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) risk may decrease compliance with public health mitigation practices, in turn increasing disease burden. The extent to which public perceptions of COVID-19 risk are inaccurate is not well studied. This study investigates the relationship between preferred information sources and inaccurate COVID-19 risk perception. A cross-sectional online survey of adults in the United States using online snowball techniques was administered between April 9, 2020 and July 12, 2020. Raking techniques were used to generate a representative U.S. sample from 10,650 respondents. Respondents who did not provide an answer to key questions were excluded. The remaining sample included 1,785 health care workers (HCW) and 4,843 non-HCW. Subjective risk was measured as the product of perceived likelihood of COVID-19 infection and perceived harm from infection. Objective risk was measured as a function of the presence of known COVID-19 risk factors. Discrepancies between subjective and objective risk were compared between respondents with different preferred information sources. Chi Square contingency tables and pair-wise correlation were used to evaluate differences to 95% confidence. For HCW and non-HCW, the greatest overestimation of personal COVID-19 risk assessment (<i>p</i> < .05 for all differences) were found in those whose preferred source of information was social media (HCW: 62.1%; non-HCW: 64.5%), followed by internet news sources (HCW: 59.6%, non-HCW%: 59.1%), government websites (HCW: 54%, non-H<i>CW</i> = 51.8%), other sources (HCW: 50.7%, non-H<i>CW</i> = 51.4%), and television news (HCW: 46.1%, non-HCW: 47.6%). Preferred information sources correlate with inaccuracies in personal COVID-19 risk assessment. Public health information campaigns should consider targeting groups whose preferred information sources correlate to higher inaccuracies in COVID-19 risk perceptions. [<b><i>HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice</i>. 2023;7(2):e105-e110.</b>].</p>","PeriodicalId":36651,"journal":{"name":"Health literacy research and practice","volume":"7 2","pages":"e105-e110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d1/88/hlrp0623ezrinalennonbr-prt.PMC10256272.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preferred Information Source Correlates to COVID-19 Risk Misperception.\",\"authors\":\"Emilia V Ezrina, Huamei Dong, Ray Block, Robert P Lennon\",\"doi\":\"10.3928/24748307-20230523-01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Inaccurate perceptions of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) risk may decrease compliance with public health mitigation practices, in turn increasing disease burden. The extent to which public perceptions of COVID-19 risk are inaccurate is not well studied. This study investigates the relationship between preferred information sources and inaccurate COVID-19 risk perception. A cross-sectional online survey of adults in the United States using online snowball techniques was administered between April 9, 2020 and July 12, 2020. Raking techniques were used to generate a representative U.S. sample from 10,650 respondents. Respondents who did not provide an answer to key questions were excluded. The remaining sample included 1,785 health care workers (HCW) and 4,843 non-HCW. Subjective risk was measured as the product of perceived likelihood of COVID-19 infection and perceived harm from infection. Objective risk was measured as a function of the presence of known COVID-19 risk factors. Discrepancies between subjective and objective risk were compared between respondents with different preferred information sources. Chi Square contingency tables and pair-wise correlation were used to evaluate differences to 95% confidence. For HCW and non-HCW, the greatest overestimation of personal COVID-19 risk assessment (<i>p</i> < .05 for all differences) were found in those whose preferred source of information was social media (HCW: 62.1%; non-HCW: 64.5%), followed by internet news sources (HCW: 59.6%, non-HCW%: 59.1%), government websites (HCW: 54%, non-H<i>CW</i> = 51.8%), other sources (HCW: 50.7%, non-H<i>CW</i> = 51.4%), and television news (HCW: 46.1%, non-HCW: 47.6%). Preferred information sources correlate with inaccuracies in personal COVID-19 risk assessment. Public health information campaigns should consider targeting groups whose preferred information sources correlate to higher inaccuracies in COVID-19 risk perceptions. [<b><i>HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice</i>. 2023;7(2):e105-e110.</b>].</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health literacy research and practice\",\"volume\":\"7 2\",\"pages\":\"e105-e110\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d1/88/hlrp0623ezrinalennonbr-prt.PMC10256272.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health literacy research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20230523-01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health literacy research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20230523-01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对 COVID-19(冠状病毒病 2019)风险的不准确认知可能会降低对公共卫生减灾措施的遵守程度,进而增加疾病负担。公众对 COVID-19 风险认知的不准确程度尚未得到充分研究。本研究调查了首选信息来源与不准确的 COVID-19 风险认知之间的关系。在 2020 年 4 月 9 日至 2020 年 7 月 12 日期间,采用在线滚雪球技术对美国成年人进行了横断面在线调查。采用滚雪球技术从 10,650 名受访者中产生了具有代表性的美国样本。未回答关键问题的受访者被排除在外。其余样本包括 1,785 名医护人员 (HCW) 和 4,843 名非医护人员。主观风险是指感染 COVID-19 的可能性与感染的危害性的乘积。客观风险则根据是否存在已知的 COVID-19 风险因素来衡量。对不同首选信息来源的受访者的主观风险和客观风险之间的差异进行了比较。采用卡方或然率表和配对相关性对差异进行评估,置信度达到 95%。对于高危职业妇女和非高危职业妇女而言,首选信息来源为社交媒体的受访者对个人 COVID-19 风险评估的高估程度最高(所有差异的 p < .05)(高危职业妇女:62.1%;非高危职业妇女:64.5%),其次是互联网新闻来源(HCW:59.6%;非HCW%:59.1%)、政府网站(HCW:54%;非HCW=51.8%)、其他来源(HCW:50.7%;非HCW=51.4%)和电视新闻(HCW:46.1%;非HCW:47.6%)。首选信息来源与个人 COVID-19 风险评估的不准确性相关。公共卫生信息宣传活动应考虑针对那些首选信息来源与 COVID-19 风险认知不准确度较高相关的群体。[HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2023; 7(2):e105-e110.].
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Preferred Information Source Correlates to COVID-19 Risk Misperception.

Inaccurate perceptions of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) risk may decrease compliance with public health mitigation practices, in turn increasing disease burden. The extent to which public perceptions of COVID-19 risk are inaccurate is not well studied. This study investigates the relationship between preferred information sources and inaccurate COVID-19 risk perception. A cross-sectional online survey of adults in the United States using online snowball techniques was administered between April 9, 2020 and July 12, 2020. Raking techniques were used to generate a representative U.S. sample from 10,650 respondents. Respondents who did not provide an answer to key questions were excluded. The remaining sample included 1,785 health care workers (HCW) and 4,843 non-HCW. Subjective risk was measured as the product of perceived likelihood of COVID-19 infection and perceived harm from infection. Objective risk was measured as a function of the presence of known COVID-19 risk factors. Discrepancies between subjective and objective risk were compared between respondents with different preferred information sources. Chi Square contingency tables and pair-wise correlation were used to evaluate differences to 95% confidence. For HCW and non-HCW, the greatest overestimation of personal COVID-19 risk assessment (p < .05 for all differences) were found in those whose preferred source of information was social media (HCW: 62.1%; non-HCW: 64.5%), followed by internet news sources (HCW: 59.6%, non-HCW%: 59.1%), government websites (HCW: 54%, non-HCW = 51.8%), other sources (HCW: 50.7%, non-HCW = 51.4%), and television news (HCW: 46.1%, non-HCW: 47.6%). Preferred information sources correlate with inaccuracies in personal COVID-19 risk assessment. Public health information campaigns should consider targeting groups whose preferred information sources correlate to higher inaccuracies in COVID-19 risk perceptions. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2023;7(2):e105-e110.].

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health literacy research and practice
Health literacy research and practice Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Relation Between Health Literacy, Infodemic, and Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination in Iran: A Cross-Sectional Study. Health Literacy and Adherence to Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study in Portugal. Association of Social Determinants of Health With Hospital Readmission and Mortality: A Prospective Cohort Study. Health Literacy Directed Weight Loss Intervention in Primary Care Clinics. Get Health'e': A Pilot Test of a Digital Health Literacy Intervention for Young Adults.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1