Public views of coronavirus science and scientists: findings from a cross-sectional survey.

Q1 Medicine

Wellcome Open Research Pub Date : 2024-12-05 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16780.1

Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Michelle L Taylor, Ulrika Maude, Lucy Yardley, Richard Huxtable, Jo Stubbs, Tim J Peters

{"title":"Public views of coronavirus science and scientists: findings from a cross-sectional survey.","authors":"Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Michelle L Taylor, Ulrika Maude, Lucy Yardley, Richard Huxtable, Jo Stubbs, Tim J Peters","doi":"10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16780.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, references to scientific findings have permeated public-facing communications. Understanding how members of the public view science, scientists and scientific uncertainty should enhance approaches to communication and individuals' decisions to engage with public health measures, including restrictions and vaccination programmes. This article provides descriptive statistics regarding public views and their univariable associations with key variables: age, gender, ethnicity, keyworker status, shielding status, caring responsibilities, and coronavirus exposure.Methods: A survey was conducted on our behalf by YouGov in November 2020. The survey asked about: level of public trust in scientists and scientific information; changes in trust between March and November 2020; views about communication of scientific uncertainty; confidence in the accuracy of scientific findings; and views about whether public information accurately represents coronavirus science.Results: The sample comprised 2,025 individuals in England; 40.5% were ≥55 years old, 51.1% were female; 12.3% identified as members of an ethnic minority/mixed ethnicity. Trust was highest among older respondents and those who identified as of white ethnicity. The concurrent (November 2020) levels of reported trust in scientific information about coronavirus were generally lower than those reported retrospectively for the pandemic's start (March 2020). There was higher trust and positivity about science among people who had been shielding and among those who had not contracted coronavirus. Around half of respondents did not think that the uncertainty in science was conveyed much or at all, most were confident in the accuracy of coronavirus science, and around half thought that public information was a true representation of the science.Conclusions: Our study indicates that there is room to improve trust and communication in science. As well as multivariable analyses to explore interrelationships, further research could examine reasons behind change in trust over time and any patterns due to age, ethnicity, and shielding status.","PeriodicalId":23677,"journal":{"name":"Wellcome Open Research","volume":" ","pages":"166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11635929/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wellcome Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16780.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, references to scientific findings have permeated public-facing communications. Understanding how members of the public view science, scientists and scientific uncertainty should enhance approaches to communication and individuals' decisions to engage with public health measures, including restrictions and vaccination programmes. This article provides descriptive statistics regarding public views and their univariable associations with key variables: age, gender, ethnicity, keyworker status, shielding status, caring responsibilities, and coronavirus exposure.

Methods: A survey was conducted on our behalf by YouGov in November 2020. The survey asked about: level of public trust in scientists and scientific information; changes in trust between March and November 2020; views about communication of scientific uncertainty; confidence in the accuracy of scientific findings; and views about whether public information accurately represents coronavirus science.

Results: The sample comprised 2,025 individuals in England; 40.5% were ≥55 years old, 51.1% were female; 12.3% identified as members of an ethnic minority/mixed ethnicity. Trust was highest among older respondents and those who identified as of white ethnicity. The concurrent (November 2020) levels of reported trust in scientific information about coronavirus were generally lower than those reported retrospectively for the pandemic's start (March 2020). There was higher trust and positivity about science among people who had been shielding and among those who had not contracted coronavirus. Around half of respondents did not think that the uncertainty in science was conveyed much or at all, most were confident in the accuracy of coronavirus science, and around half thought that public information was a true representation of the science.

Conclusions: Our study indicates that there is room to improve trust and communication in science. As well as multivariable analyses to explore interrelationships, further research could examine reasons behind change in trust over time and any patterns due to age, ethnicity, and shielding status.

查看原文本刊更多论文

公众对冠状病毒科学和科学家的看法：一项横断面调查的结果

背景：在整个冠状病毒大流行期间，对科学发现的提及渗透到了面向公众的交流中。了解公众如何看待科学、科学家和科学不确定性，应加强沟通方法，并加强个人参与公共卫生措施的决定，包括限制和疫苗接种计划。方法：YouGov于2020年11月代表我们进行了一项调查。调查询问了以下问题：公众对科学家和科学信息的信任程度；2020年3月至11月之间的信托变化；关于科学不确定性传播的观点；对科学发现准确性的信心；以及关于公共信息是否准确反映冠状病毒科学的观点。结果：样本包括2025名居住在英格兰的人；40.5%的人年龄≥55岁，51.1%的人是女性，12.3%的人属于少数民族/混合民族。在这里，我们提供了六个关键变量的描述性统计数据：年龄、性别、种族、关键员工状态、屏蔽状态和冠状病毒暴露。年龄较大的受访者和白人受访者的信任度最高。同时（2020年11月）报告的对冠状病毒科学信息的信任水平通常低于疫情开始时（2020年3月）的回顾性报告。一直在屏蔽的人和没有感染冠状病毒的人对科学的信任和积极性更高。大约一半的受访者认为科学的不确定性没有得到太多或根本没有传达，大多数人对冠状病毒科学的准确性充满信心，大约一半的人认为公共信息是科学的真实代表。结论：我们的研究表明，在科学领域有提高信任和沟通的空间。除了对相互关系进行详细分析外，进一步的研究还可以根据年龄、种族和屏蔽状态来研究信任随时间变化的原因以及任何持续的模式。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Wellcome Open Research Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)

CiteScore

5.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

426

审稿时长

1 weeks

期刊介绍： Wellcome Open Research publishes scholarly articles reporting any basic scientific, translational and clinical research that has been funded (or co-funded) by Wellcome. Each publication must have at least one author who has been, or still is, a recipient of a Wellcome grant. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others, is welcome and will be published irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies are all suitable. See the full list of article types here. All articles are published using a fully transparent, author-driven model: the authors are solely responsible for the content of their article. Invited peer review takes place openly after publication, and the authors play a crucial role in ensuring that the article is peer-reviewed by independent experts in a timely manner. Articles that pass peer review will be indexed in PubMed and elsewhere. Wellcome Open Research is an Open Research platform: all articles are published open access; the publishing and peer-review processes are fully transparent; and authors are asked to include detailed descriptions of methods and to provide full and easy access to source data underlying the results to improve reproducibility.