Examining Australian’s beliefs, misconceptions and sources of information for COVID-19: a national online survey
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Public cooperation to practise preventive health behaviours is essential to manage the transmission of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. We aimed to investigate beliefs about COVID-19 diagnosis, transmission and prevention that have the potential to impact the uptake of recommended public health strategies.
Design
An online cross-sectional survey.
Participants
A national sample of 1500 Australian adults with representative quotas for age and gender provided by an online panel provider.
Main outcome measure
Proportion of participants with correct/incorrect knowledge of COVID-19 preventive behaviours and reasons for misconceptions.
Results
Of the 1802 potential participants contacted, 289 did not qualify, 13 declined and 1500 participated in the survey (response rate 83%). Most participants correctly identified ‘washing your hands regularly with soap and water’ (92%) and ‘staying at least 1.5 m away from others’ (90%) could help prevent COVID-19. Over 40% (incorrectly) considered wearing gloves outside of the home would prevent them from contracting COVID-19. Views about face masks were divided. Only 66% of participants correctly identified that ‘regular use of antibiotics’ would not prevent COVID-19.
Most participants (90%) identified ‘fever, fatigue and cough’ as indicators of COVID-19. However, 42% of participants thought that being unable to ‘hold your breath for 10 s without coughing’ was an indicator of having the virus. The most frequently reported sources of COVID-19 information were commercial television channels (56%), the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (43%) and the Australian Government COVID-19 information app (31%).
Conclusions
Public messaging about hand hygiene and physical distancing to prevent transmission appears to have been effective. However, there are clear, identified barriers for many individuals that have the potential to impede uptake or maintenance of these behaviours in the long term. We need to develop public health messages that harness these barriers to improve future cooperation. Ensuring adherence to these interventions is critical.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163204: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethics approval for this research (#RT03008).
Consent: Continuation of survey was accepted as informed consent.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources First, we conducted a focused literature search of PubMed for misconceptions from the current COVID-19 pandemic and previous epidemics (i.e., keyword search included terms for severe acute respiratory syndrome, H1N1 Influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and myths or misconceptions). PubMedsuggested: …SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163204: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethics approval for this research (#RT03008).
Consent: Continuation of survey was accepted as informed consent.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources First, we conducted a focused literature search of PubMed for misconceptions from the current COVID-19 pandemic and previous epidemics (i.e., keyword search included terms for severe acute respiratory syndrome, H1N1 Influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and myths or misconceptions). PubMedsuggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163204: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethics approval for this research (#RT03008). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable As per the sampling frame, 50% of survey participants were female, there was a representation across adult age groups and a proportional representation from each Australian state and territory. 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163204: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethics approval for this research (#RT03008). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable As per the sampling frame, 50% of survey participants were female, there was a representation across adult age groups and a proportional representation from each Australian state and territory. 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:
Strengths and limitations In our sample, 70% of participants were born in Australia. Although this reflects Australian population demographics, results from this survey may not translate to individuals where English is not their primary language. We did not assess cultural and linguistic diversity which limits the generalisability of our findings to this group. McCaffery et al [5] identified that participants whose primary language was not English had poorer understanding of COVID-19 symptoms, were less able to identify behaviours that reduced infection risk, and experienced more difficulty understanding Government messaging. Public health messaging not only should ensure translation of messages but also understand the cultural differences that may interfere with practicing preventive behaviours. Unlike other Australian surveys [5,8], our survey looked beyond quantifying knowledge and attitudes to include qualitative content analyses to identify specific reasons for participants’ misconceptions. Our sample was balanced for gender and stratified for age. We also had proportionally representative quotas from each Australian State and Territory. Despite these efforts, we acknowledge that survey research (with panel providers) has certain biases such as selection and sampling bias, and therefore suggest care when interpreting any results. Conclusion: Our results suggest that although clear public messaging about the two, key evidence-based prevention behaviours (hand hygiene and physical distancing) are broadly understood, there are still important knowledge gaps around how the disease is prevented, transmitted and its symptoms. Public health messages will need to combat the misconceptions that antibiotics and complementary medicines are effective in prevention and/or treating COVID-19. These beliefs have the potential to impede individuals from practicing appropriate and effective behaviours. In the absence of a vaccine or effective drug treatments our only prevention strategies are non-drug interventions, especially physical distancing and hand hygiene [1]. How do we maintain these behaviours in the long term and how do we initiate other behaviours yet to be seen as critical such as wearing masks, testing when symptomatic, self-isolating, and downloading contact tracing apps? By understanding some of the misconceptions identified in our survey and using the principles of public communication and knowledge translation, we can develop intervention strategies for the longer term.
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.
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 is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163204: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethics approval for this research (#RT03008). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable As per the sampling frame, 50% of survey participants were female, there was a representation across adult age groups and a proportional representation from each Australian state and territory. 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163204: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethics approval for this research (#RT03008). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable As per the sampling frame, 50% of survey participants were female, there was a representation across adult age groups and a proportional representation from each Australian state and territory. 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:
Strengths and limitations In our sample, 70% of participants were born in Australia. Although this reflects Australian population demographics, results from this survey may not translate to individuals where English is not their primary language. We did not assess cultural and linguistic diversity which limits the generalisability of our findings to this group. McCaffery et al [5] identified that participants whose primary language was not English had poorer understanding of COVID-19 symptoms, were less able to identify behaviours that reduced infection risk, and experienced more difficulty understanding Government messaging. Public health messaging not only should ensure translation of messages but also understand the cultural differences that may interfere with practicing preventive behaviours. Unlike other Australian surveys [5,8], our survey looked beyond quantifying knowledge and attitudes to include qualitative content analyses to identify specific reasons for participants’ misconceptions. Our sample was balanced for gender and stratified for age. We also had proportionally representative quotas from each Australian State and Territory. Despite these efforts, we acknowledge that survey research (with panel providers) has certain biases such as selection and sampling bias, and therefore suggest care when interpreting any results. Conclusion: Our results suggest that although clear public messaging about the two, key evidence-based prevention behaviours (hand hygiene and physical distancing) are broadly understood, there are still important knowledge gaps around how the disease is prevented, transmitted and its symptoms. Public health messages will need to combat the misconceptions that antibiotics and complementary medicines are effective in prevention and/or treating COVID-19. These beliefs have the potential to impede individuals from practicing appropriate and effective behaviours. In the absence of a vaccine or effective drug treatments our only prevention strategies are non-drug interventions, especially physical distancing and hand hygiene [1]. How do we maintain these behaviours in the long term and how do we initiate other behaviours yet to be seen as critical such as wearing masks, testing when symptomatic, self-isolating, and downloading contact tracing apps? By understanding some of the misconceptions identified in our survey and using the principles of public communication and knowledge translation, we can develop intervention strategies for the longer term.
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.
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 is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163204: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethics approval for this research (#RT03008). Randomization In the randomly coded sample of 50% (n=299), 33% of participants incorrectly understood the transmission of COVID-19 (e.g., “won’t come into contact with the virus”, “stop transmission”). Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable As per the sampling frame, 50% of survey participants were female, there was a representation across adult age groups and a proportional representation from each Australian state and territory. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources First, we conducted a … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163204: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethics approval for this research (#RT03008). Randomization In the randomly coded sample of 50% (n=299), 33% of participants incorrectly understood the transmission of COVID-19 (e.g., “won’t come into contact with the virus”, “stop transmission”). Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable As per the sampling frame, 50% of survey participants were female, there was a representation across adult age groups and a proportional representation from each Australian state and territory. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources First, we conducted a focused literature search of PubMed for misconceptions from the current COVID-19 pandemic and previous epidemics (i.e., keyword search included terms for severe acute respiratory syndrome, H1N1 Influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and myths or misconceptions). PubMedsuggested: (PubMed, SCR_004846)Data from additional tools added to each annotation on a weekly basis.
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 is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
