Knowledge and Behaviors Toward COVID-19 Among US Residents During the Early Days of the Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Online Questionnaire
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The early days of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States brought uncertainty in the knowledge about COVID-19 and what to do about it. It is necessary to understand public knowledge and behaviors if we are to effectively address the pandemic.
Objective
The aim of this study is to test the hypothesis that knowledge about COVID-19 influences participation in different behaviors including self-reports of purchasing more goods than usual, attending large gatherings, and using medical masks.
Methods
This study was funded and approved by the Institutional Review Board on March 17, 2020. The cross-sectional online survey of 1034 US residents aged 18 years or older was conducted on March 17, 2020.
Results
For every point increase in knowledge, the odds of participation in purchasing more goods (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95), attending large gatherings (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.93), and using medical masks (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.50-0.62) decreased by 12%, 13%, and 44%, respectively. Gen X and millennial participants had 56% and 76% higher odds, respectively, of increased purchasing behavior compared to baby boomers. The results suggest that there is a politicization of response recommendations. Democrats had 30% lower odds of attending large gatherings (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.97) and 48% lower odds of using medical masks (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.78) compared to Republicans.
Conclusions
This survey is one of the first attempts to study determinants of knowledge and behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. A national, coordinated effort toward a pandemic response may ensure better compliance with behavioral recommendations to address this public health emergency.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.31.20048967: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The Institutional Review Board at Michigan State University determined that this research was exempt from full board review.
Consent: Participants provided consent by answering a yes-no question at the start of the survey before they could move to the first question.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable Knowledge scores were compared using independent sample t-test for differences in mean score between males and females, as well as groups based on whether people had engaged in hoarding activity or not, had attended large gatherings or not, and had worn masks or not. Table 2: Resources
… SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.31.20048967: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The Institutional Review Board at Michigan State University determined that this research was exempt from full board review.
Consent: Participants provided consent by answering a yes-no question at the start of the survey before they could move to the first question.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable Knowledge scores were compared using independent sample t-test for differences in mean score between males and females, as well as groups based on whether people had engaged in hoarding activity or not, had attended large gatherings or not, and had worn masks or not. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were conducted using SPSS (v.25)26. SPSSsuggested: (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 are some limitations to this research. First, knowledge questions are not validated and scientific knowledge is currently a moving target. For example, while the current consensus is that eating wild animals will not transmit the disease, living and working in close proximity to animals clearly influenced this outbreak and could influence future outbreaks. As such, the argument for banning wet markets in China is gaining momentum, but knowledge about proximity to animals, as opposed to using them as a food source, might be conflated. In addition, knowledge regarding who is most at risk for COVID-19 may change as the pandemic proceeds, as well as with experiences in different countries. For instance, fewer younger people in China were infected, while in the U.S. a different pattern appears to be emerging29. Next, this was a convenience sample of U.S. residents from every state in the country, but people were able to self-select based on their interest and experience with the topic. It is possible that sample demographics may not completely represent the U.S. public. Finally, although the survey questions were not able to be validated given the fast-moving nature of the pandemic response in the U.S., the questions do have face value in the context of the situation at the time the survey was conducted.
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.
-
-
-
