Perception of and anxiety about COVID-19 infection and risk behaviors for spreading infection: an international comparison

  1. Akihiro Shiina
  2. Tomihisa Niitsu
  3. Osamu Kobori
  4. Keita Idemoto
  5. Tasuku Hashimoto
  6. Tsuyoshi Sasaki
  7. Yoshito Igarashi
  8. Eiji Shimizu
  9. Michiko Nakazato
  10. Kenji Hashimoto
  11. Masaomi Iyo

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

To control the spread of the new SARS-CoV-2 infection's disease (COVID-19), appropriate precautionary behaviors by the public should be promoted. There are international differences in public cognitive and behavioral pattern, attitudes toward information sources, and anxiety about COVID-19. Information about these differences could increase understanding of the patterns of epidemic-related anxiety and behavior, and would help optimize future policies for preventing the next wave of the epidemic.

Methods

To examine between-country differences in perception, attitude, and precautionary behaviors toward COVID-19, we conducted a cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire survey. Participants were adults who had been registered in Cross Marketing Group Inc. and living in the UK, Spain, or Japan. A total of 8,000 people stratified by age were recruited on a first-come, first-serve basis. Knowledge of and anxiety about COVID-19, the frequency of access and perceived credibility of several information sources, and the frequency of each precautionary behavior were examined on March 27–28, 2020, in Japan and April 17–21, 2020, in the UK and Spain.

Results

Knowledge, anxiety, and the frequency of precautionary behaviors were higher in the UK and Spain than in Japan. Participants with infected acquaintances were more concerned about COVID-19. However, participants in the UK rarely wore a medical mask. Participants in the UK and Spain were more eager to obtain information about COVID-19 than those in Japan. Participants in Spain tended not to trust official information and to believe specialists’ comments instead.

Conclusion

The rapidity of the spread of COVID-19, cultural background, and recent political situations seemed to contribute to the international differences here.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1186/s12991-021-00334-6
  2. Version published to 10.21203/rs.3.rs-77387/v1 on Research Square
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.30.228643: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The whole study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine and the Ethics Committee of the International University of Health and Welfare before implementation.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We analyzed the gathered data using SPSS for Windows, ver. 24 (IBM, Armonk, NY).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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:
    There may be several limitations in this study. It was conducted from March to April in 2020. The time point of the survey differed between Japan and the other countries, and this may have influenced the results. In addition, since a series of web-based questionnaires was used, we cannot eliminate the possibility of selection bias among participants. We gathered the responses of only people who were willing to complete online questionnaires.

    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:
    • No conflict of interest statement was detected. If there are no conflicts, we encourage authors to explicit state so.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.30.228643v1 on bioRxiv