Correlates of intended COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across time and countries: results from a series of cross-sectional surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Describe demographical, social and psychological correlates of willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. SETTING: Series of online surveys undertaken between March and October 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 25 separate national samples (matched to country population by age and sex) in 12 different countries were recruited through online panel providers (n=25 334). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: Reported willingness to receive a vaccine varied widely across samples, ranging from 63% to 88%. Multivariate logistic regression analyses reveal sex (female OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.64), trust in medical and scientific experts (OR=1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34) and worry about the COVID-19 virus (OR=1.47, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.53) as the strongest correlates of stated vaccine acceptance considering pooled data and the most consistent correlates across countries. In a subset of UK samples, we show that these effects are robust after controlling for attitudes towards vaccination in general. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the burden of trust largely rests on the shoulders of the scientific and medical community, with implications for how future COVID-19 vaccination information should be communicated to maximise uptake.

How do the UK public interpret COVID-19 test results? Comparing the impact of official information about results and reliability used in the UK, USA and New Zealand: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different official information on public interpretation of a personal COVID-19 PCR test result. DESIGN: A 5×2 factorial, randomised, between-subjects experiment, comparing four wordings of information about the test result and a control arm of no additional information; for both positive and negative test results. SETTING: Online experiment using recruitment platform Respondi. PARTICIPANTS: UK participants (n=1744, after a pilot of n=1657) quota-sampled to be proportional to the UK national population on age and sex. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were given a hypothetical COVID-19 PCR test result for 'John' who was presented as having a 50% chance of having COVID-19 based on symptoms alone. Participants were randomised to receive either a positive or negative result for 'John', then randomised again to receive either no more information, or text information on the interpretation of COVID-19 test results copied in September 2020 from the public websites of the UK's National Health Service, the USA's Centers for Disease Control, New Zealand's Ministry of Health or a modified version of the UK's wording. Information identifying the source of the wording was removed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were asked 'What is your best guess as to the percent chance that John actually had COVID-19 at the time of his test, given his result?'; questions about their feelings of trustworthiness in the result, their perceptions of the quality of the underlying evidence and what action they felt 'John' should take in the light of his result. RESULTS: Of those presented with a positive COVID-19 test result for 'John', the mean estimate of the probability that he had the virus was 73% (71.5%-74.5%); for those presented with a negative result, 38% (36.7%-40.0%). There was no main effect of information (wording) on these means. However, those participants given the official information from the UK website, which did not mention the possibility of false negatives or false positives, were more likely to give a categorical (100% or 0%) answer (UK: 68/343, 19.8% (15.9%-24.4%); control group: 42/356, 11.8% (8.8%-15.6%)); the reverse was true for those viewing the New Zealand (NZ) wording, which highlighted the uncertainties most explicitly (20/345: 5.8% (3.7%-8.8%)). Aggregated across test result (positive/negative), there was a main effect of wording (p<0.001) on beliefs about how 'John' should behave, with those seeing the NZ wording marginally more likely to agree that 'John' should continue to self-isolate than those viewing the control or the UK wording. The proportion of participants who felt that a symptomatic individual who tests negative definitely should not self-isolate was highest among those viewing the UK wording (31/178, 17.4% (12.5%-23.7%)), and lowest among those viewing the NZ wording (6/159, 3.8% (1.6%-8.2%)). Although the NZ wording was rated harder to understand, participants reacted to the uncertainties given in the text in the expected direction: there was a small main effect of wording on trust in the result (p=0.048), with people perceiving the test result as marginally less trustworthy after having read the NZ wording compared with the UK wording. Positive results were generally viewed as more trustworthy and as having higher quality of evidence than negative results (both p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The public's default assessment of the face value of both the positive and negative test results (control group) indicate an awareness that test results are not perfectly accurate. Compared with other messaging tested, participants shown the UK's 2020 wording about the interpretation of the test results appeared to interpret the results as more definitive than is warranted. Wording that acknowledges uncertainty can help people to have a more nuanced and realistic understanding of what a COVID-19 test result means, which supports decision making and behavioural response. PREREGISTRATION AND DATA REPOSITORY: Preregistration of pilot at osf.io/8n62f, preregistration of main experiment at osf.io/7rcj4, data and code available online (osf.io/pvhba).

How well did experts and laypeople forecast the size of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, social and traditional media have disseminated predictions from experts and nonexperts about its expected magnitude. How accurate were the predictions of 'experts'-individuals holding occupations or roles in subject-relevant fields, such as epidemiologists and statisticians-compared with those of the public? We conducted a survey in April 2020 of 140 UK experts and 2,086 UK laypersons; all were asked to make four quantitative predictions about the impact of COVID-19 by 31 Dec 2020. In addition to soliciting point estimates, we asked participants for lower and higher bounds of a range that they felt had a 75% chance of containing the true answer. Experts exhibited greater accuracy and calibration than laypersons, even when restricting the comparison to a subset of laypersons who scored in the top quartile on a numeracy test. Even so, experts substantially underestimated the ultimate extent of the pandemic, and the mean number of predictions for which the expert intervals contained the actual outcome was only 1.8 (out of 4), suggesting that experts should consider broadening the range of scenarios they consider plausible. Predictions of the public were even more inaccurate and poorly calibrated, suggesting that an important role remains for expert predictions as long as experts acknowledge their uncertainty.

Communicating personalized risks from COVID-19: guidelines from an empirical study.

As increasing amounts of data accumulate on the effects of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the risk factors that lead to poor outcomes, it is possible to produce personalized estimates of the risks faced by groups of people with different characteristics. The challenge of how to communicate these then becomes apparent. Based on empirical work (total n = 5520, UK) supported by in-person interviews with the public and physicians, we make recommendations on the presentation of such information. These include: using predominantly percentages when communicating the absolute risk, but also providing, for balance, a format which conveys a contrasting (higher) perception of risk (expected frequency out of 10 000); using a visual linear scale cut at an appropriate point to illustrate the maximum risk, explained through an illustrative 'persona' who might face that highest level of risk; and providing context to the absolute risk through presenting a range of other 'personas' illustrating people who would face risks of a wide range of different levels. These 'personas' should have their major risk factors (age, existing health conditions) described. By contrast, giving people absolute likelihoods of other risks they face in an attempt to add context was considered less helpful. We note that observed effect sizes generally were small. However, even small effects are meaningful and relevant when scaled up to population levels.

Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world.

Misinformation about COVID-19 is a major threat to public health. Using five national samples from the UK (n = 1050 and n = 1150), Ireland (n = 700), the USA (n = 700), Spain (n = 700) and Mexico (n = 700), we examine predictors of belief in the most common statements about the virus that contain misinformation. We also investigate the prevalence of belief in COVID-19 misinformation across different countries and the role of belief in such misinformation in predicting relevant health behaviours. We find that while public belief in misinformation about COVID-19 is not particularly common, a substantial proportion views this type of misinformation as highly reliable in each country surveyed. In addition, a small group of participants find common factual information about the virus highly unreliable. We also find that increased susceptibility to misinformation negatively affects people's self-reported compliance with public health guidance about COVID-19, as well as people's willingness to get vaccinated against the virus and to recommend the vaccine to vulnerable friends and family. Across all countries surveyed, we find that higher trust in scientists and having higher numeracy skills were associated with lower susceptibility to coronavirus-related misinformation. Taken together, these results demonstrate a clear link between susceptibility to misinformation and both vaccine hesitancy and a reduced likelihood to comply with health guidance measures, and suggest that interventions which aim to improve critical thinking and trust in science may be a promising avenue for future research.