Public Perceptions of COVID-19 in Australia: Perceived Risk, Knowledge, Health-Protective Behaviors, and Vaccine Intentions

  1. Kate Faasse
  2. Jill Newby

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.551004
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.25.20079996: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethical approval: The study was approved by the UNSW Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel (File 3309), and all participants provided electronic informed consent to participate.
    Consent: Participants: In total, 3,086 people viewed the participant information page and consent form.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The current study has limitations that should be taken into account. Participants were recruited online, primarily through Facebook, and therefore may not be representative of the general population. Although we recruited a range of education levels, cultural backgrounds, age ranges, and gender, three quarters were female, and Caucasian, 43% were from NSW, and 62% were younger than 50 years of age, and results may not generalise to the broader population. To maximise convenience sampling, we used solely self-report measures, which may lead to biased effects. While the results of the regression analyses provide interesting starting points to identify the demographic and risk variables that predict actual and anticipated health behaviours, as well as vaccine intentions, they cannot establish causality, and must be interpreted with caution. Given the large sample, the relationships between some of the significant predictors are likely to be small and may not be clinically meaningful. The current results provide timely and important information on the Australian public responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, including information sources and engagement, knowledge, and perceived risk in the early stages of the outbreak in Australia, and their relationship with current and intended health-protective behaviours and vaccine intentions. Overall, the findings show that perceived risk of outbreak and personal risk of contracting COVID-19 were moderate immediately prior to a widespread outbr...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.25.20079996 on medRxiv