Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Trust in experts, not trust in national leadership, leads to greater uptake of recommended actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ahluwalia, Sangeeta C; Edelen, Maria O; Qureshi, Nabeel; Etchegaray, Jason M.
  • Ahluwalia SC; Department of Behavioral and Policy Sciences RAND Corporation Santa Monica California USA.
  • Edelen MO; Department of Health Policy and Management UCLA Fielding School of Public Health Los Angeles California USA.
  • Qureshi N; Department of Behavioral and Policy Sciences RAND Corporation Santa Monica California USA.
  • Etchegaray JM; Patient Reported Outcomes, Value and Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA.
Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy ; 12(3): 283-302, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1222694
ABSTRACT
Evidence suggests that people vary in their desire to undertake protective actions during a health emergency, and that trust in authorities may influence decision making. We sought to examine how the trust in health experts and trust in White House leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic impacts individuals' decisions to adopt recommended protective actions such as mask-wearing. A mediation analysis was conducted using cross-sectional U.S. survey data collected between March 27 and 30, 2020, to elucidate how individuals' trust in health experts and White House leadership, their perceptions of susceptibility and severity to COVID-19, and perceived benefits of protecting against COVID-19, influenced their uptake of recommended protective actions. Trust in health experts was associated with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 and benefits of taking action, which led to greater uptake of recommended actions. Trust in White House leadership was associated with lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and was not associated with taking recommended actions. Having trust in health experts is a greater predictor of individuals' uptake of protective actions than having trust in White House leadership. Public health messaging should emphasize the severity of COVID-19 and the benefits of protecting oneself while ensuring consistency and transparency to regain trust in health experts.
RESUMEN
La evidencia sugiere que las personas varían en su deseo de emprender acciones de protección durante una emergencia de salud y que la confianza en las autoridades puede influir en la toma de decisiones. Buscamos examinar cómo la confianza en los expertos en salud y la confianza en el liderazgo de la Casa Blanca durante la pandemia de COVID­19 impactan las decisiones de las personas para adoptar las acciones de protección recomendadas, como el uso de máscaras. Se realizó un análisis de mediación utilizando datos de encuestas transversales de EE. UU. Recopilados entre el 27 y el 30 de marzo de 2020 para dilucidar cómo la confianza de las personas en los expertos en salud y el liderazgo de la Casa Blanca, sus percepciones de susceptibilidad y gravedad al COVID­19, y los beneficios percibidos de protegerse contra COVID­19, influyó en su adopción de las acciones de protección recomendadas. La confianza en los expertos en salud se asoció con una mayor gravedad percibida de COVID­19 y los beneficios de tomar medidas, lo que llevó a una mayor aceptación de las acciones recomendadas. La confianza en el liderazgo de la Casa Blanca se asoció con una menor susceptibilidad percibida al COVID­19 y no con la adopción de las acciones recomendadas. Tener confianza en los expertos en salud es un factor de predicción mayor de la adopción de acciones de protección por parte de los individuos que tener confianza en el liderazgo de la Casa Blanca. Los mensajes de salud pública deben enfatizar la gravedad de COVID­19 y los beneficios de protegerse a sí mismo, al tiempo que se garantiza la coherencia y la transparencia para recuperar la confianza en los expertos en salud.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Language: English Journal: Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy Year: 2021 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Language: English Journal: Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy Year: 2021 Document Type: Article