Search

BackgroundHolding conspiracy beliefs regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has been associated with reductions in both actions to prevent the spread of the infection (eg, mask wearing) and intentions to accept a vaccine when one becomes available. Patterns of media use have also been associated with acceptance of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. Here we ask whether the type of media on which a person relies increased, decreased, or had no additional effect on that person’s COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs over a 4-month period. ObjectiveWe used panel data to explore whether use of conservative and social media in the United States, which were previously found to be positively related to holding conspiracy beliefs about the origins and prevention of COVID-19, were associated with a net increase in the strength of those beliefs from March to July of 2020. We also asked whether mainstream news sources, which were previously found to be negatively related to belief in pandemic-related conspiracies, were associated with a net decrease in the strength of such beliefs over the study period. Additionally, we asked whether subsequent changes in pandemic conspiracy beliefs related to the use of media were also related to subsequent mask wearing and vaccination intentions. MethodsA survey that we conducted with a national US probability sample in March of 2020 and again in July with the same 840 respondents assessed belief in pandemic-related conspiracies, use of various types of media information sources, actions taken to prevent the spread of the disease and intentions to vaccinate, and various demographic characteristics. Change across the two waves was analyzed using path analytic techniques. ResultsWe found that conservative media use predicted an increase in conspiracy beliefs (β=.17, 99% CI .10-.25) and that reliance on mainstream print predicted a decrease in their belief (β=–.08, 99% CI –.14 to –.02). Although many social media platforms reported downgrading or removing false or misleading content, ongoing use of such platforms by respondents predicted growth in conspiracy beliefs as well (β=.072, 99% CI .018-.123). Importantly, conspiracy belief changes related to media use between the two waves of the study were associated with the uptake of mask wearing and changes in vaccination intentions in July. Unlike other media, use of mainstream broadcast television predicted greater mask wearing (β=.17, 99% CI .09-.26) and vaccination intention (β=.08, 95% CI .02-.14), independent of conspiracy beliefs. ConclusionsThe findings point to the need for greater efforts on the part of commentators, reporters, and guests on conservative media to report verifiable information about the pandemic. The results also suggest that social media platforms need to be more aggressive in downgrading, blocking, and counteracting claims about COVID-19 vaccines, claims about mask wearing, and conspiracy beliefs that have been judged problematic by public health authorities.

ObjectiveBoth legacy media, such as television and newspapers, and online social media are potentially important but incompletely understood sources of information in the face of emerging public health risks. This research aimed to understand media effects on risk perceptions and behaviors concerning the Zika virus in the United States.MethodsWe analyzed a multi-wave nationally representative survey (N = 29,062) and the volume of communications in social and legacy media (i.e., legacy media data from news sources and databases, N = 2,660 and social media data from Twitter, N = 1,605,752) in the United States between April and October 2016, dates coinciding with the early cases of local transmission of Zika in the United States (i.e., 25 weeks). The present study conducted econometric analyses (i.e., Granger causality tests) to assess the associations of legacy and social media coverage with risk perceptions and protective behaviors in the total sample and specific groups separated by pregnancy status/intent, geographic region, income, education level, age, and ethnicity.ResultsThe results from the overall sample suggested that changes in the volume of information in legacy and social media (i.e., Twitter) were followed by different changes in community risk perceptions and protective behaviors. Specifically, social media coverage correlated with the level of risk perceptions, whereas the legacy media coverage correlated with the level of protective behaviors. Analyses across different subpopulations, including those of different pregnancy status/intent, geographic Zika risk, income, education level, age, and ethnicity, replicated the social media associations with risk perceptions in most cases. However, legacy media and protective behaviors were linked only in some vulnerable subpopulations (e.g., the less-educated populations).ConclusionUnderstanding how media coverage relates to Zika risk perceptions and protective behaviors will help to facilitate effective risk communications by healthcare professionals and providers, particularly when a health risk emerges.

In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.

Understanding the factors associated with acceptance of climate action is central in designing effective climate change communication strategies. An exploratory factor analysis of 12 science-consistent beliefs about the existence, causes, and consequences of climate change reveals three underlying factors: climate change [a] is real and human caused, [b] has increased the frequency of extreme weather events, and [c] negatively affects public health. In the presence of demographic, ideological, and party controls, this health factor significantly predicts a 3–6 percentage point increase in respondents' [a] willingness to advocate for climate change; [b] reported personal pro-climate behaviors; and [c] support for government policies addressing climate change. These results are robust when controlling for respondents' underlying belief in the existence and causes of climate change, respondent worry, self-efficacy, and respondent belief that extreme weather events and heat waves are increasing. These findings suggest ways to bolster public support for climate policies that may otherwise be at risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite differential uptake of COVID-19 vaccination between Black and non-Hispanic White Americans early in the pandemic, the gap narrowed over time. We tested five hypotheses that could explain the reduction in the disparity. Using a national probability panel of over 1800 individuals surveyed from April 2021 to July 2022, we assessed receipt of recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines along with (a) reported exposure to deaths due to COVID-19, (b) trust in US health authorities, such as the CDC, (c) knowledge about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, (d) media use as a source of information, and (e) access to COVID-19 vaccines. Only increases in knowledge about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines uniquely mediated the increase in vaccination uptake among non-Hispanic Black compared to White, Asian and Hispanic panelists. While trust in CDC and exposure to COVID-19 deaths were related to vaccination acceptance at baseline, those factors were not associated with change in reported vaccination coverage. In addition, neither differential access nor media use explained the increase. Enhanced knowledge about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination transmitted from within the Black community likely helped to increase vaccination relative to other racial-ethnic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Improve incentives to support research integrity