A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions 1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process 2. In April 2020, an influential paper 3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

DATA AVAILABILITY : All data and study material are provided either in the Supplementary information or through the two online repositories (OSF and Tableau Public, both accessible via https://psyarxiv.com/58udn). No code was used for analyses in this work.Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process. In April 2020, an influential paper proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.The National Science Foundation; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation | Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development); National Science Foundation grants; the European Research Council; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.http://www.nature.com/naturehj2024Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS)Non

Actively Open-Minded Thinking, Bullshit Receptivity, and Susceptibility to Framing: Evaluating the Dual-Process Account in North America and Bulgaria (2021)

The framing effect occurs when different presentations of the same problem lead to predictably different preferences. The dual-process framework of higher cognition assumes that the effect violates rational principles, but alternative accounts and recent evidence have contested this interpretation. Contributing to this debate, we tested the dual-process assumption by investigating associations between susceptibility to framing and the willingness and ability to think in line with rational norms, conceptualized as actively open-minded thinking and pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity, or the tendency to uncritically accept meaningless statements as profound. We conducted two online studies among North American (N = 259) and Bulgarian (N = 248) university students and administered several framing problems within subjects, presumably a necessary condition for the associations to appear. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that susceptibility to framing was associated with decreased actively open-minded thinking and increased bullshit receptivity in both sites. Exploratory multi-group analyses demonstrated partial strong invariance and showed that the negative association between actively open-minded thinking and susceptibility to framing was stronger among Bulgarians than North Americans. These results support the dual-process account of the framing effect. Our study further contributes to adapting existing measures to a novel setting and expanding the findings across borders and populations

Proteomic profiling in an animal model of acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease of the pancreas, which evolves in approximately 20% of the patients to a severe illness associated with a high mortality rate. In this study, we performed a comparative proteomic analysis of pancreatic tissue extracts from rats with AP and healthy rodent controls in order to identify changes in protein expression related to the pathobiological processes of this disease. Pancreatic extracts from diseased and controls rats were analyzed by 2-DE and MS/MS. A total of 125 proteins were identified from both samples. Comparative analysis allowed the detection of 42 proteins or protein fragments differentially expressed between diseased and control pancreas, some of them being newly described in AP. Interestingly, these changes were representative of the main pathobiological pathways involved in this disease. We observed activation of digestive proteases and increased expression of various inflammatory markers, including several members of the alpha-macroglobulin family. We also detected changes related to oxidative and cell stress responses. Finally, we highlighted modifications of 14-3-3 proteins that could be related to apoptosis regulation. These results showed the interest of proteomic analysis to identify changes characterizing pancreatic tissue damage and, therefore, to highlight new potential biomarkers of AP

Effects of supplementation with essential amino acids on intrahepatic lipid concentrations during fructose overfeeding in humans.

BACKGROUND: A high dietary protein intake has been shown to blunt the deposition of intrahepatic lipids in high-fat- and high-carbohydrate-fed rodents and humans. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of essential amino acid supplementation on the increase in hepatic fat content induced by a high-fructose diet in healthy subjects. DESIGN: Nine healthy male volunteers were studied on 3 occasions in a randomized, crossover design after 6 d of dietary intervention. Dietary conditions consisted of a weight-maintenance balanced diet (control) or the same balanced diet supplemented with 3 g fructose · kg(-1) · d(-1) and 6.77 g of a mixture of 5 essential amino acids 3 times/d (leucine, isoleucine, valine, lysine, and threonine) (HFrAA) or with 3 g fructose · kg(-1) · d(-1) and a maltodextrin placebo 3 times/d (HFr); there was a washout period of 4 to 10 wk between each condition. For each condition, the intrahepatocellular lipid (IHCL) concentration, VLDL-triglyceride concentration, and VLDL-[(13)C]palmitate production were measured after oral loading with [(13)C]fructose. RESULTS: HFr increased the IHCL content (1.27 ± 0.31 compared with 2.74 ± 0.55 vol %; P < 0.05) and VLDL-triglyceride (0.55 ± 0.06 compared with 1.40 ± 0.15 mmol/L; P < 0.05). HFr also enhanced VLDL-[(13)C]palmitate production. HFrAA significantly decreased IHCL compared with HFr (to 2.30 ± 0.43 vol%; P < 0.05) but did not change VLDL-triglyceride concentrations or VLDL-[(13)C]palmitate production. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with essential amino acids blunts the fructose-induced increase in IHCL but not hypertriglyceridemia. This is not because of inhibition of VLDL-[(13)C]palmitate production. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01119989

Evaluating expectations from social and behavioral science about COVID-19 and lessons for the next pandemic

Social and behavioral science research proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting the substantial increase in influence of behavioral science in public health and public policy more broadly. This review presents a comprehensive assessment of 742 scientific articles on human behavior during COVID-19. Two independent teams evaluated 19 substantive policy recommendations (“claims”) on potentially critical aspects of behaviors during the pandemic drawn from the most widely cited behavioral science papers on COVID-19. Teams were made up of original authors and an independent team, all of whom were blinded to other team member reviews throughout. Both teams found evidence in support of 16 of the claims; for two claims, teams found only null evidence; and for no claims did the teams find evidence of effects in the opposite direction. One claim had no evidence available to assess. Seemingly due to the risks of the pandemic, most studies were limited to surveys, highlighting a need for more investment in field research and behavioral validation studies. The strongest findings indicate interventions that combat misinformation and polarization, and to utilize effective forms of messaging that engage trusted leaders and emphasize positive social norms

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19.

Acknowledgements: We thank Z. Ji, M. Nair Dedhia, A. Lazara, G. Wilson, J. Usseglio, A. Asfa Durrani and M. Kobotis, as well as Corpus Christi College and the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge; and S. Kousta. K.R. reports financial support from the National Science Foundation (2218595). P.B. reports funding from (1) Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education) — 88887.310255/2018; (2) Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education) — 1133/2019; and (3) the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation | Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) — 309905/2019-2. E.P. reports financial support from National Science Foundation grants (SES-2017651 and SES-2022478). K.M.D. reports financial support from the European Research Council (101018262). R.S.R. reports financial support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (172681). Elements of Fig. 1 come from Apple Keys software.Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations ('claims') detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms 'physical distancing' and 'social distancing'. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization