Dear Pandemic: A topic modeling analysis of COVID-19 information needs among readers of an online science communication campaign.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by an "infodemic"-an overwhelming excess of accurate, inaccurate, and uncertain information. The social media-based science communication campaign Dear Pandemic was established to address the COVID-19 infodemic, in part by soliciting submissions from readers to an online question box. Our study characterized the information needs of Dear Pandemic's readers by identifying themes and longitudinal trends among question box submissions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of questions submitted from August 24, 2020, to August 24, 2021. We used Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic modeling to identify 25 topics among the submissions, then used thematic analysis to interpret the topics based on their top words and submissions. We used t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding to visualize the relationship between topics, and we used generalized additive models to describe trends in topic prevalence over time. RESULTS: We analyzed 3839 submissions, 90% from United States-based readers. We classified the 25 topics into 6 overarching themes: 'Scientific and Medical Basis of COVID-19,' 'COVID-19 Vaccine,' 'COVID-19 Mitigation Strategies,' 'Society and Institutions,' 'Family and Personal Relationships,' and 'Navigating the COVID-19 Infodemic.' Trends in topics about viral variants, vaccination, COVID-19 mitigation strategies, and children aligned with the news cycle and reflected the anticipation of future events. Over time, vaccine-related submissions became increasingly related to those surrounding social interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Question box submissions represented distinct themes that varied in prominence over time. Dear Pandemic's readers sought information that would not only clarify novel scientific concepts, but would also be timely and practical to their personal lives. Our question box format and topic modeling approach offers science communicators a robust methodology for tracking, understanding, and responding to the information needs of online audiences.

The Exodus Of State And Local Public Health Employees: Separations Started Before And Continued Throughout COVID-19.

Understanding the size and composition of the state and local governmental public health workforce in the United States is critical for promoting and protecting the health of the public. Using pandemic-era data from the Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey fielded in 2017 and 2021, this study compared intent to leave or retire in 2017 with actual separations through 2021 among state and local public health agency staff. We also examined how employee age, region, and intent to leave correlated with separations and considered the effect on the workforce if trends were to continue. In our analytic sample, nearly half of all employees in state and local public health agencies left between 2017 and 2021, a proportion that rose to three-quarters for those ages thirty-five and younger or with shorter tenures. If separation trends continue, by 2025 this would represent more than 100,000 staff leaving their organizations, or as much as half of the governmental public health workforce in total. Given the likelihood of increasing outbreaks and future global pandemics, strategies to improve recruitment and retention must be prioritized.

A Descriptive Analysis of the Relationship between Social Media Use and Vaccine Hesitancy among a Sample of Unvaccinated Adults in Canada.

Both traditional and social media information sources have disseminated information on the COVID-19 pandemic. The content shared may influence public opinion on different mitigation strategies, including vaccination. Misinformation can alter risk perception and increase vaccine hesitancy. This study aimed to explore the impact of using social media as the primary information source about the COVID-19 vaccine on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among people living in Canada. Secondary objectives identified other predictors of vaccine hesitancy and distinguished the effects of using traditional and social media sources. We used quota sampling of adults in Canada [N = 985] to conduct an online survey on the Pollfish survey platform between 21st and 28th May 2021. We then used bivariate chi-squared tests and multivariable logistic regression modeling to explore the associations between using social media as one's primary source of information about the COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine hesitancy. We further analyzed the association between specific types of channels of information and vaccine hesitancy. After controlling for covariates such as age, sex, race, and ethnicity, individuals reporting social media as their primary source of COVID-19 vaccine information versus those who had not used social media as their primary source of COVID-19 vaccine information had 50% higher odds of vaccine hesitancy. Among different channels of information, we found that information from television was associated with a 40% lower odds ratio for vaccine hesitancy. Since social media platforms play an essential role in influencing hesitancy in taking the COVID-19 vaccination, it is necessary to improve the quality of social media information sources and raise people's trust in information. Meanwhile, traditional media channels, such as television, are still crucial for promoting vaccination programs.

Association between COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and trust in the medical profession and public health officials.

One's personal physician, national and state or local public health officials, and the broader medical profession play important roles in encouraging vaccine uptake for COVID-19. However, the relationship between trust in these experts and vaccine hesitancy has been underexplored, particularly among racial/minority groups where historic medical mistrust may reduce uptake. Using an April 2021 online sample of US adults (n = 3041) that explored vaccine hesitancy, regression models estimate levels of trust in each of these types of experts and between trust in each of these experts and the odds of being COVID-19 vaccine takers vs refusers or hesitaters. Interaction terms assess how levels of trust in the medical profession by race/ethnicity are associated with vaccine hesitancy. Trust in each expert is positively associated with trust in other experts, except for trust in the medical profession. Only trust in one's own doctor was associated with trust in the medical profession, as measured by factor scores derived from a validated scale. Lower levels of trust in experts were significantly associated with being either a hesitater or a refuser compared to being a taker. Black respondents had higher odds of being either a hesitater or a refuser compared to white respondents but the interaction with trust was insignificant. For Hispanic respondents only, the odds of being a hesitater declined significantly when trust in the medical profession rose. Mistrust in the medical profession, one's doctor and national experts contributes to vaccine hesitancy. Mobilizing personal physicians to speak to their own patients may help.

Freedom of Choice to Vaccinate and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Italy.

Despite the availability of effective vaccines that lower mortality and morbidity associated with COVID-19, many countries including Italy have adopted strict vaccination policies and mandates to increase the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. Such mandates have sparked debates on the freedom to choose whether or not to get vaccinated. In this study, we examined the people's belief in vaccine choice as a predictor of willingness to get vaccinated among a sample of unvaccinated individuals in Italy. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted in Italy in May 2021. The survey collected data on respondents' demographics and region of residence, socioeconomic factors, belief in the freedom to choose to be vaccinated or not, risk perception of contracting and transmitting the disease, previous vaccine refusal, opinion on adequacy of government measures to address the pandemic, experience in requesting and being denied government aid during the pandemic, and intent to accept COVID-19 vaccination. The analysis employed binary logistic regression models using a hierarchical model building approach to assess the association between intent to accept vaccination and belief in the freedom to choose to vaccinate, while adjusting for other variables of interest. 984 unvaccinated individuals were included in the study. Respondents who agreed that people should be free to decide whether or not to vaccinate with no restrictions on their personal life had 85% lower odds of vaccine acceptance (OR = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09,0.23) after adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic factors and their risk perception of contracting and transmitting COVID-19. Belief in the freedom to choose whether or not to accept vaccinations was a major predictor of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among a sample of unvaccinated individuals in Italy in May 2021. This understanding of how individuals prioritize personal freedoms and the perceived benefits and risks of vaccines, when making health care decisions can inform the development of public health outreach, educational programs, and messaging.

Association between COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and trust in the medical profession and public health officials

One's personal physician, national and state or local public health officials, and the broader medical profession play important roles in encouraging vaccine uptake for COVID-19. However, the relationship between trust in these experts and vaccine hesitancy has been underexplored, particularly among racial/minority groups where historic medical mistrust may reduce uptake. Using an April 2021 online sample of US adults (n = 3041) that explored vaccine hesitancy, regression models estimate levels of trust in each of these types of experts and between trust in each of these experts and the odds of being COVID-19 vaccine takers vs refusers or hesitaters. Interaction terms assess how levels of trust in the medical profession by race/ethnicity are associated with vaccine hesitancy. Trust in each expert is positively associated with trust in other experts, except for trust in the medical profession. Only trust in one's own doctor was associated with trust in the medical profession, as measured by factor scores derived from a validated scale. Lower levels of trust in experts were significantly associated with being either a hesitater or a refuser compared to being a taker. Black respondents had higher odds of being either a hesitater or a refuser compared to white respondents but the interaction with trust was insignificant. For Hispanic respondents only, the odds of being a hesitater declined significantly when trust in the medical profession rose. Mistrust in the medical profession, one's doctor and national experts contributes to vaccine hesitancy. Mobilizing personal physicians to speak to their own patients may help.

Exploring the Association between Negative Emotions and COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Unvaccinated Adults in Sweden.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on individuals' mental health. This study aimed to investigate how negative emotions toward the COVID-19 pandemic, including feeling anxious, depressed, upset, and stressed, were associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Sweden. The study is a cross-sectional online survey conducted between 21-28 May 2021, using three nested hierarchical logistic regression models to assess the association. The study included 965 unvaccinated individuals, 51.2% (n = 494) of whom reported their intention to get vaccinated. We observed graded positive associations between reported negative emotions and vaccine acceptance. Individuals who experienced economic stress had lower odds of vaccine acceptance while having a positive opinion of the government's response to COVID-19 was associated with higher odds of being vaccine-acceptant. In conclusion, unvaccinated individuals experiencing negative emotions about the pandemic were more willing to get the vaccine. On the contrary, those with a negative opinion about the government's response, and those that had experienced economic stress were less likely to accept the immunization.

Cross-National Vaccine Concerns and Predictors of Vaccine Hesitancy in Not-Fully Vaccinated Individuals: Findings from USA, Canada, Sweden, and Italy.

Vaccine hesitancy is a key contributor to reduced COVID-19 vaccine uptake and remains a threat to COVID-19 mitigation strategies as many countries are rolling out the campaign for booster shots. The goal of our study is to identify and compare the top vaccine concerns in four countries: Canada, Italy, Sweden, and the USA and how these concerns relate to vaccine hesitancy. While most individuals in these countries are now vaccinated, we expect our results to be helpful in guiding vaccination efforts for additional doses, and more in general for other vaccines in the future. We sought to empirically test whether vaccine related concerns followed similar thematic issues in the four countries included in this study, and then to see how these themes related to vaccine hesitancy using data from a cross-sectional survey conducted in May 2021. We applied CFA and created vaccine concern scales for analysis. We then utilized these results in regression-based modeling to determine how concerns related to vaccine hesitancy and whether there were similar or different concerns by country. The results quantitatively highlight that the same vaccine related concerns permeated multiple countries at the same point in time. This implies that COVID-19 vaccination communications could benefit from global collaboration.

Determinants of the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy spectrum.

Vaccine hesitancy remains an issue in the United States. This study conducted an online survey [N = 3,013] using the Social Science Research Solution [SSRS] Opinion Panel web panelists, representative of U.S. adults age 18 and older who use the internet, with an oversample of rural-dwelling and minority populations between April 8 and April 22, 2021- as vaccine eligibility opened to the country. We examined the relationship between COVID-19 exposure and socio-demographics with vaccine intentions [eager-to-take, wait-and-see, undecided, refuse] among the unvaccinated using multinomial logistic regressions [ref: fully/partially vaccinated]. Results showed vaccine intentions varied by demographic characteristics and COVID-19 experience during the period that eligibility for the vaccine was extended to all adults. At the time of the survey approximately 40% of respondents were unvaccinated; 41% knew someone who had died of COVID-19, and 38% had experienced financial hardship as a result of the pandemic. The vaccinated were more likely to be highly educated, older adults, consistent with the United States initial eligibility criteria. Political affiliation and financial hardship experienced during the pandemic were the two most salient factors associated with being undecided or unwilling to take the vaccine.

Testing the Efficacy of Attitudinal Inoculation Videos to Enhance COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: Quasi-Experimental Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of COVID-19-related misinformation has spread and been amplified online. The spread of misinformation can influence COVID-19 beliefs and protective actions, including vaccine hesitancy. Belief in vaccine misinformation is associated with lower vaccination rates and higher vaccine resistance. Attitudinal inoculation is a preventative approach to combating misinformation and disinformation, which leverages the power of narrative, rhetoric, values, and emotion. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to test inoculation messages in the form of short video messages to promote resistance against persuasion by COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. METHODS: We designed a series of 30-second inoculation videos and conducted a quasi-experimental study to test the use of attitudinal inoculation in a population of individuals who were unvaccinated (N=1991). The 3 intervention videos were distinguished by their script design, with intervention video 1 focusing on narrative/rhetorical ("Narrative") presentation of information, intervention video 2 focusing on delivering a fact-based information ("Fact"), and intervention video 3 using a hybrid design ("Hybrid"). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to compare the main effect of the intervention on the 3 outcome variables: ability to recognize misinformation tactics ("Recognize"), willingness to share misinformation ("Share"), and willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine ("Willingness"). RESULTS: There were significant effects across all 3 outcome variables comparing inoculation intervention groups to controls. For the Recognize outcome, the ability to recognize rhetorical strategies, there was a significant intervention group effect (P<.001). For the Share outcome, support for sharing the mis- and disinformation, the intervention group main effect was statistically significant (P=.02). For the Willingness outcome, there was a significant intervention group effect; intervention groups were more willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine compared to controls (P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Across all intervention groups, inoculated individuals showed greater resistance to misinformation than their noninoculated counterparts. Relative to those who were not inoculated, inoculated participants showed significantly greater ability to recognize and identify rhetorical strategies used in misinformation, were less likely to share false information, and had greater willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Attitudinal inoculation delivered through short video messages should be tested in public health messaging campaigns to counter mis- and disinformation.

Exploring the Association between Misinformation Endorsement, Opinions on the Government Response, Risk Perception, and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the US, Canada, and Italy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the adverse consequences created by an infodemic, specifically bringing attention to compliance with public health guidance and vaccine uptake. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a complex construct that is related to health beliefs, misinformation exposure, and perceptions of governmental institutions. This study draws on theoretical models and current data on the COVID-19 infodemic to explore the association between the perceived risk of COVID-19, level of misinformation endorsement, and opinions about the government response on vaccine uptake. We surveyed a sample of 2697 respondents from the US, Canada, and Italy using a mobile platform between 21-28 May 2021. Using multivariate regression, we found that country of residence, risk perception of contracting and spreading COVID-19, perception of government response and transparency, and misinformation endorsement were associated with the odds of vaccine hesitancy. Higher perceived risk was associated with lower odds of hesitancy, while lower perceptions of government response and higher misinformation endorsement were associated with higher hesitancy.

Essential Workers' COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy, Misinformation, and Informational Needs in the Republic of North Macedonia.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in over 5.2 million deaths. Vaccine hesitancy remains a public health challenge, especially in Eastern Europe. Our study used a sample of essential workers living in the Republic of North Macedonia to: (1) Describe rates of vaccine hesitancy and risk perception of COVID-19; (2) Explore predictors of vaccine hesitancy; and (3) Describe the informational needs of hesitant and non-hesitant workers. A phone survey was administered in North Macedonia from 4-16 May 2021. Logistic regression explored associations of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy with sociodemographic characteristics, non-COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, previous diagnosis of COVID-19, and individual risk perception of contracting COVID-19. Chi-squared analyses compared differences in informational needs by hesitancy status. Of 1003 individuals, 44% were very likely to get the vaccine, and 56% reported some level of hesitancy. Older age, Albanian ethnicity, increased education, previous COVID-19 diagnosis, acceptance of other vaccines, and increased risk perception of COVID-19 infection were negatively associated with vaccine hesitancy. Results indicated significant differences in top informational needs by hesitancy status. The top informational needs of the hesitant were the freedom to choose to be vaccinated without consequences (57% vs. 42%, p < 0.01) and that all main international agencies recommended the vaccine (35% vs. 24%, p < 0.01).

COVID-19 Vaccine Early Skepticism, Misinformation and Informational Needs among Essential Workers in the USA.

This study presents the results of a survey of 1591 hesitant U.S. essential workers, conducted over Pollfish in December 2020 when they were the only group eligible for the vaccine, aiming to describe their concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety, effectiveness and distribution policies. We computed frequencies using the SAS software for each answer, using chi-squared statistics and Cochran-Armitage trend tests to determine how informational needs differ by age, gender, level of education, race, source of COVID-19 information and levels of vaccine acceptance. The results of this study show that freedom of choice, equal access to the vaccine and being able to live a life with no restrictions once vaccinated were important concerns since the early days of the distribution campaign, with 53% (836/1591), 42% (669/1591) and 35% (559/1591) of hesitant respondents, respectively, indicating they would be more likely to receive the COVID-19 vaccine if they felt these issues were satisfactorily addressed. Early risk communication and immunization campaign strategies should address not only the reported efficacy and safety of new vaccines, but, as equally important, the population's perceptions and beliefs regarding personal choice, effectiveness and adverse consequences.

COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns about Safety, Effectiveness, and Policies in the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Italy among Unvaccinated Individuals.

Despite the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine, global vaccination distribution efforts have thus far had varying levels of success. Vaccine hesitancy remains a threat to vaccine uptake. This study has four objectives: (1) describe and compare vaccine hesitancy proportions by country; (2) categorize vaccine-related concerns; (3) rank vaccine-related concerns; and (4) compare vaccine-related concerns by country and hesitancy status in four countries-the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Italy. Using the Pollfish survey platform, we sampled 1000 respondents in Canada, Sweden, and Italy and 750 respondents in the United States between 21-28 May 2021. Results showed vaccine-related concerns varied across three topical areas-vaccine safety and government control, vaccine effectiveness and population control, and freedom. For each thematic area, the top concern was statistically significantly different in each country and among the hesitant and non-hesitant subsamples within each county. Concerns related to freedom were the most universal. Understanding the specific concerns among individuals when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine can help to inform public communications and identify which, if any, salient narratives are global.

Development of a Codebook of Online Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric to Manage COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation.

Vaccine hesitancy (delay in obtaining a vaccine, despite availability) represents a significant hurdle to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy is in part related to the prevalence of anti-vaccine misinformation and disinformation, which are spread through social media and user-generated content platforms. This study uses qualitative coding methodology to identify salient narratives and rhetorical styles common to anti-vaccine and COVID-denialist media. It organizes these narratives and rhetorics according to theme, imagined antagonist, and frequency. Most frequent were narratives centered on "corrupt elites" and rhetorics appealing to the vulnerability of children. The identification of these narratives and rhetorics may assist in developing effective public health messaging campaigns, since narrative and emotion have demonstrated persuasive effectiveness in other public health communication settings.

Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Socio-Demographics, Co-Morbidity, and Past Experience of Racial Discrimination.

The goal of this study is to explore predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, including socio-demographic factors, comorbidity, risk perception, and experience of discrimination, in a sample of the U.S. population. We used a cross-sectional online survey study design, implemented between 13-23 December 2020. The survey was limited to respondents residing in the USA, belonging to priority groups for vaccine distribution. Responses were received from 2650 individuals (response rate 84%) from all 50 states and Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Guam. The five most represented states were California (13%), New York (10%), Texas (7%), Florida (6%), and Pennsylvania (4%). The majority of respondents were in the age category 25-44 years (66%), male (53%), and working in the healthcare sector (61%). Most were White and non-Hispanic (66%), followed by Black and non-Hispanic (14%) and Hispanic (8%) respondents. Experience with racial discrimination was a predictor of vaccine hesitancy. Those reporting racial discrimination had 21% increased odds of being at a higher level of hesitancy compared to those who did not report such experience (OR = 1.21, 95% C.I. 1.01-1.45). Communication and logistical aspects during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign need to be sensitive to individuals' past-experience of racial discrimination in order to increase vaccine coverage.

Examining the effect of information channel on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

Hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine remains high among the US population. Now that the vaccine is available to priority populations, it is critical to convince those that are hesitant to take the vaccine. Public health communication about the vaccine as well as misinformation on the vaccine occurs through a variety of different information channels. Some channels of information are more commonly found to spread misinformation. Given the expansive information environment, we sought to characterize the use of different media channels for COVID-19 vaccine information and determine the relationship between information channel and vaccine acceptance. We used quota sampling of vaccine priority groups [N = 2,650] between December 13 and 23, 2020 and conducted bivariate chi-squared tests and multivariable multinomial logistic regression analyses to determine the relative impact of channels of information on vaccine acceptance. We found traditional channels of information, especially National TV, National newspapers, and local newspapers increased the likelihood of vaccine acceptance. Individuals who received information from traditional media compared to social media or both traditional and social media were most likely to accept the vaccine. The implications of this study suggest social media channels have a role to play in educating the hesitant to accept the vaccine, while traditional media channels should continue to promote data-driven and informed vaccine content to their viewers.

Interpreting COVID-19 Test Results in Clinical Settings: It Depends!

Tests for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are intended for a disparate and shifting range of purposes: (1) diagnosing patients who present with symptoms to inform individual treatment decisions; (2) organizational uses such as "cohorting" potentially infected patients and staff to protect others; and (3) contact tracing, surveillance, and other public health purposes. Often lost when testing is encouraged is that testing does not by itself confer health benefits. Rather, testing is useful to the extent it forms a critical link to subsequent medical or public health interventions. Such interventions might be individual level, like better diagnosis, treatment, isolation, or quarantine of contacts. They might aid surveillance to understand levels and trends of disease within a defined population that enables informed decisions to implement or relax social distancing measures. In this article, we describe the range of available COVID-19 tests; their accuracy and timing considerations; and the specific clinical, organizational, and public health considerations that warrant different testing strategies. Three representative clinical scenarios illustrate the importance of appropriate test use and interpretation. The reason a patient seeks testing is often a strong indicator of the pretest probability of infection, and thus how to interpret test results. In addition, the level of population spread of the virus and the timing of testing play critical roles in the positive or negative predictive value of the test. We conclude with practical recommendations regarding the need for testing in various contexts, appropriate tests and testing methods, and the interpretation of test results.

Anticipated mental health consequences of COVID-19 in a nationally-representative sample: Context, coverage, and economic consequences.

The COVID-19 pandemic will have long-term consequences due to social and economic disruption. This study aimed to understand the contextual, media, and economic factors associated with anticipated mental health consequences from the COVID-19 pandemic among Americans. A nationally representative survey of 1001 respondents was conducted in April 2020. Chi-square tests and logistic regressions examined anticipated emotional or psychological effects on respondents or members of their households should social distancing measures continue. Specific analyses focused on: 1) COVID-19 experience - knowing someone or being infected; living in a state with a high death rate; or state social distancing policies; 2) media exposure - source of coronavirus information and time spent on coronavirus news; and 3) economics - current economic effects; and anticipated long-term financial effects. 41% of respondents anticipated mental health consequences. Living in a state with a greater COVID-19 death rate (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.10, 2.72) and anticipating long-term financial difficulties (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.93, 4.60) were both associated with greater likelihood of anticipated mental health consequences. Those whose primary news source was television, as opposed to print or online, were almost 50% less likely to anticipate mental health challenges (OR 0.52 CI 0.33, 0.81), while those who reported spending two or more hours daily on COVID-19 news were 90% more likely (OR 1.90; 95% CI 1.27, 2.85). Aspects of community health, media consumption, and economic impacts influence anticipated poor mental health from the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting each domain is relevant to interventions to address the consequences.

Factors associated with access and use of PPE during COVID-19: A cross-sectional study of Italian physicians.

OBJECTIVES: During the course of the Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, Italy has reported one of the highest number of infections. Nearly ten percent of reported coronavirus infections in Italy occurred in healthcare workers. This study aimed to understand physicians' access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and to information about their use, risk perception and strategies adopted to prevent contracting the infection. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional, online self-reported survey implemented between March 31 and April 5 2020 of Italian physicians. RESULTS: Responses were received from 516 physicians, only 13% of which reported to have access to PPE every time they need them. Approximately half of the physicians reported that the information received about the use of PPE was either clear (47%) or complete (54%). Risk perception about contracting the infection was influenced by receiving adequate information on the use of PPE. Access to adequate information on the use of PPE was associated with better ability to perform donning and doffing procedures [OR = 2.2 95% C.I. 1.7-2.8] and reduced perception of risk [OR = 0.5, 95% C.I. 0.4-0.6]. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this rapid survey indicate that while ramping up supplies on PPE for healthcare workers is certainly of mandatory importance, adequate training and clear instructions are just as important.