The impact of believing you have had COVID-19 on self-reported behaviour: Cross-sectional survey

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.30.20086223: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    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:
    This study has several limitations. First, while quotas were used to ensure a sample that was broadly representative of the general UK population, we cannot be certain whether respondents in survey panels are representative of the general population.(16, 17) We also cannot rule out participation bias. Given potential participants were not aware of the topic of the survey before starting it, the risk of this is low. Second, we did not differentiate between outings that were in line with Government guidelines and those that were not in our measure of “total out-of-home activity”. Third, because we used a cross-sectional study design, we are unable to determine the direction of associations. Fourth, due to the large sample size, small differences between groups were statistically significant. Where detected differences were very small, there may not be meaningful influence of these differences (e.g. perceived risk to self). People are likely to change their behaviour in line with their belief of whether they have had COVID-19. Even when tested, the reported result of an antigen test was not necessarily reflected in people’s belief about whether they had had COVID-19. Results from this study indicate that people who think they have had COVID-19 are less likely to adhere to social distancing measures. Clear, targeted communications might be used to advise this constantly growing group both to reduce reliance on self-diagnosis in the absence of a test and to provide advice on what ...

    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.