Ambiguity and unintended inferences about risk messages for COVID-19

The World Health Organization established that the risk of suffering severe symptoms from COVID-19 is higher for some groups, but this does not mean their chances of infection are higher. However, public health messages often highlight the “increased risk” for these groups such that the risk could be interpreted as being about contracting an infection rather than suffering severe symptoms from the illness (as intended). Stressing the risk for vulnerable groups may also prompt inferences that individuals not highlighted in the message have lower risk than previously believed. In five studies, we investigated how UK residents interpreted such risk messages about COVID-19 (n = 396, n = 399, n = 432, n = 474) and a hypothetical new virus (n = 454). Participants recognised that the risk was about experiencing severe symptoms, but over half also believed that the risk was about infection, and had a corresponding heightened perception that vulnerable people were more likely to be infected. Risk messages that clarified the risk event reduced misinterpretations for a hypothetical new virus, but existing misinterpretations of coronavirus risks were resistant to correction. We discuss the need for greater clarity in public health messaging by distinguishing between the two risk events

The COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation

This handbook is for journalists, doctors, nurses, policy makers, researchers, teachers, students, parents – in short, it’s for everyone who wants to know more about the COVID-19 vaccines, how to talk to others about them, how to challenge misinformation about the vaccines. This handbook is self-contained but additionally provides access to a “wiki” of more detailed information

Call for emergency action to restore dietary diversity and protect global food systems in times of COVID-19 and beyond: Results from a cross-sectional study in 38 countries

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the fragility of the global food system, sending shockwaves across countries\u27 societies and economy. This has presented formidable challenges to sustaining a healthy and resilient lifestyle. The objective of this study is to examine the food consumption patterns and assess diet diversity indicators, primarily focusing on the food consumption score (FCS), among households in 38 countries both before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional study with 37 207 participants (mean age: 36.70 ± 14.79, with 77 % women) was conducted in 38 countries through an online survey administered between April and June 2020. The study utilized a pre-tested food frequency questionnaire to explore food consumption patterns both before and during the COVID-19 periods. Additionally, the study computed Food Consumption Score (FCS) as a proxy indicator for assessing the dietary diversity of households. Findings: This quantification of global, regional and national dietary diversity across 38 countries showed an increment in the consumption of all food groups but a drop in the intake of vegetables and in the dietary diversity. The household\u27s food consumption scores indicating dietary diversity varied across regions. It decreased in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries, including Lebanon (p \u3c 0.001) and increased in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries including Bahrain (p = 0.003), Egypt (p \u3c 0.001) and United Arab Emirates (p = 0.013). A decline in the household\u27s dietary diversity was observed in Australia (p \u3c 0.001), in South Africa including Uganda (p \u3c 0.001), in Europe including Belgium (p \u3c 0.001), Denmark (p = 0.002), Finland (p \u3c 0.001) and Netherland (p = 0.027) and in South America including Ecuador (p \u3c 0.001), Brazil (p \u3c 0.001), Mexico (p \u3c 0.0001) and Peru (p \u3c 0.001). Middle and older ages [OR = 1.2; 95 % CI = [1.125–1.426] [OR = 2.5; 95 % CI = [1.951–3.064], being a woman [OR = 1.2; 95 % CI = [1.117–1.367], having a high education (p \u3c 0.001), and showing amelioration in food-related behaviors [OR = 1.4; 95 % CI = [1.292–1.709] were all linked to having a higher dietary diversity. Conclusion: The minor to moderate changes in food consumption patterns observed across the 38 countries within relatively short time frames could become lasting, leading to a significant and prolonged reduction in dietary diversity, as demonstrated by our findings

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 multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world

How Should Doctors Frame the Risk of a Vaccine’s Adverse Side Effects? It Depends on How Trustworthy They Are

Background How health workers frame their communication about vaccines’ probability of adverse side effects could play an important role in people’s intentions to be vaccinated (e.g., positive frame: side effects are unlikely v. negative frame: there is a chance of side effects). Based on the pragmatic account of framing as implicit advice, we expected that participants would report greater vaccination intentions when a trustworthy physician framed the risks positively (v. negatively), but we expected this effect would be reduced or reversed when the physician was untrustworthy. Design In 4 online experiments (n=191, snowball sampling and n=453, 451, and 464 UK residents via Prolific; Mage≈ 34 y, 70% women, 84% White British), we manipulated the trustworthiness of a physician and how they framed the risk of adverse side effects in a scenario (i.e., a chance v. unlikely adverse side effects). Participants reported their vaccination intention, their level of distrust in health care systems, and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. Results Physicians who were trustworthy (v. untrustworthy) consistently led to an increase in vaccination intention, but the way they described adverse side effects mattered too. A positive framing of the risks given by a trustworthy physician consistently led to increased vaccination intention relative to a negative framing, but framing had no effect or the opposite effect when given by an untrustworthy physician. The exception to this trend occurred in unvaccinated individuals in experiment 3, following serious concerns about one of the COVID vaccines. In that study, unvaccinated participants responded more favorably to the negative framing of the trustworthy physician. Conclusions Trusted sources should use positive framing to foster vaccination acceptance. However, in a situation of heightened fears, a negative framing—attracting more attention to the risks—might be more effective

sj-docx-1-mdm-10.1177_0272989X231197646 – Supplemental material for How Should Doctors Frame the Risk of a Vaccine’s Adverse Side Effects? It Depends on How Trustworthy They Are

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mdm-10.1177_0272989X231197646 for How Should Doctors Frame the Risk of a Vaccine’s Adverse Side Effects? It Depends on How Trustworthy They Are by Marie Juanchich, Miroslav Sirota and Dawn Liu Holford in Medical Decision Making</p

COVID-19: Conspiracies and Collateral Damage vs. Constructive Critique

The COVID-19 pandemic that turned the world upside down in early 2020 also gave rise to an “infodemic” of misinformation and conspiracy theories. This chapter tackles three issues. We first explore the political and ideological underpinnings of the COVID-19 infodemic and its organizational, rhetorical, and ideological links to climate denial. We then highlight the legitimacy of political grievances in light of government pandemic policies. We conclude by proposing a sketch of the boundary between politically-motivated denial of science on the one hand and legitimate political arguments on the other

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

The COVID-19 pandemic (and its aftermath) 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

Proceedings of the OHBM Brainhack 2021

The global pandemic presented new challenges and op-portunities for organizing conferences, and OHBM 2021was no exception. The OHBM Brainhack is an event thatoccurs just prior to the OHBM meeting, typically in-per-son, where scientists of all levels of expertise and interestgather to work and learn together for a few days in a col-laborative hacking-style environment on projects of com-mon interest (1). Building off the success of the OHBM2020 Hackathon (2), the 2021 Open Science SpecialInterest Group came together online to organize a largecoordinated Brainhack event that would take place overthe course of 4 days. The OHBM 2021 Brainhack eventwas organized along two guiding principles, providinga highly inclusive collaborative environment for inter-action between scientists across disciplines and levelsof expertise to push forward important projects thatneed support, also known as the “Hack-Track” of theBrainhack. The second aim of the OHBM Brainhack is toempower scientists to improve the quality of their sci-entific endeavors by providing high-quality hands-ontraining on best practices in open-science approaches.This is best exemplified by the training events providedby the “Train-Track” at the OHBM 2021 Brainhack. Here,we briefly explain both of these elements of the OHBM2021 Brainhack, before continuing on to the Brainhackproceedings