A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Significance Communicating in ways that motivate engagement in social distancing remains a critical global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study tested motivational qualities of messages about social distancing (those that promoted choice and agency vs. those that were forceful and shaming) in 25,718 people in 89 countries. The autonomy-supportive message decreased feelings of defying social distancing recommendations relative to the controlling message, and the controlling message increased controlled motivation, a less effective form of motivation, relative to no message. Message type did not impact intentions to socially distance, but people’s existing motivations were related to intentions. Findings were generalizable across a geographically diverse sample and may inform public health communication strategies in this and future global health emergencies. Abstract Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

In COVID-19 health messaging, loss framing increases anxiety with little-to-no concomitant benefits: experimental evidence from 84 countries

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g., “If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others”) or potential gains (e.g., “If you practice these steps, you can protect yourself and others”)? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimentally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behavioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules (THYCOVID): a retrospective, international, multicentre, cross-sectional study

Background: Since its outbreak in early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has diverted resources from non-urgent and elective procedures, leading to diagnosis and treatment delays, with an increased number of neoplasms at advanced stages worldwide. The aims of this study were to quantify the reduction in surgical activity for indeterminate thyroid nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic; and to evaluate whether delays in surgery led to an increased occurrence of aggressive tumours. Methods: In this retrospective, international, cross-sectional study, centres were invited to participate in June 22, 2022; each centre joining the study was asked to provide data from medical records on all surgical thyroidectomies consecutively performed from Jan 1, 2019, to Dec 31, 2021. Patients with indeterminate thyroid nodules were divided into three groups according to when they underwent surgery: from Jan 1, 2019, to Feb 29, 2020 (global prepandemic phase), from March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021 (pandemic escalation phase), and from June 1 to Dec 31, 2021 (pandemic decrease phase). The main outcomes were, for each phase, the number of surgeries for indeterminate thyroid nodules, and in patients with a postoperative diagnosis of thyroid cancers, the occurrence of tumours larger than 10 mm, extrathyroidal extension, lymph node metastases, vascular invasion, distant metastases, and tumours at high risk of structural disease recurrence. Univariate analysis was used to compare the probability of aggressive thyroid features between the first and third study phases. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05178186. Findings: Data from 157 centres (n=49 countries) on 87 467 patients who underwent surgery for benign and malignant thyroid disease were collected, of whom 22 974 patients (18 052 [78·6%] female patients and 4922 [21·4%] male patients) received surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules. We observed a significant reduction in surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules during the pandemic escalation phase (median monthly surgeries per centre, 1·4 [IQR 0·6-3·4]) compared with the prepandemic phase (2·0 [0·9-3·7]; p<0·0001) and pandemic decrease phase (2·3 [1·0-5·0]; p<0·0001). Compared with the prepandemic phase, in the pandemic decrease phase we observed an increased occurrence of thyroid tumours larger than 10 mm (2554 [69·0%] of 3704 vs 1515 [71·5%] of 2119; OR 1·1 [95% CI 1·0-1·3]; p=0·042), lymph node metastases (343 [9·3%] vs 264 [12·5%]; OR 1·4 [1·2-1·7]; p=0·0001), and tumours at high risk of structural disease recurrence (203 [5·7%] of 3584 vs 155 [7·7%] of 2006; OR 1·4 [1·1-1·7]; p=0·0039). Interpretation: Our study suggests that the reduction in surgical activity for indeterminate thyroid nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic period could have led to an increased occurrence of aggressive thyroid tumours. However, other compelling hypotheses, including increased selection of patients with aggressive malignancies during this period, should be considered. We suggest that surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules should no longer be postponed even in future instances of pandemic escalation. Funding: None