CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 232Communication and COVID-19 ImpactCOVID-19 Prevention and ImpactCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

COVID-SCORE: a global survey to assess public perceptions of government responses to COVID-19 (COVID-SCORE-10)

Open access
Lazarus, Jeffrey V., Ratzan, Scott, Palayew, Adam, Billari, Francesco C., Binagwaho, Agnes, Kimball, Spencer, Larson, Heidi J., Melegaro, Alessia +3 more·2020·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0240011PMC PMC7538106
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding public perceptions of government responses to COVID-19 may foster improved public cooperation. Trust in government and population risk of exposure may influence public perception of the response. Other population-level characteristics, such as country socio-economic development, COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, and degree of democratic government, may influence perception. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed a novel ten-item instrument that asks respondents to rate key aspects of their government's response to the pandemic (COVID-SCORE). We examined whether the results varied by gender, age group, education level, and monthly income. We also examined the internal and external validity of the index using appropriate predefined variables. To test for dimensionality of the results, we used a principal component analysis (PCA) for the ten survey items. We found that Cronbach's alpha was 0.92 and that the first component of the PCA explained 60% of variance with the remaining factors having eigenvalues below 1, strongly indicating that the tool is both reliable and unidimensional. Based on responses from 13,426 people randomly selected from the general population in 19 countries, the mean national scores ranged from 35.76 (Ecuador) to 80.48 (China) out of a maximum of 100 points. Heterogeneity in responses was observed across age, gender, education and income with the greatest amount of heterogeneity observed between countries. National scores correlated with respondents' reported levels of trust in government and with country-level COVID-19 mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-SCORE survey instrument demonstrated satisfactory validity. It may help governments more effectively engage constituents in current and future efforts to control COVID-19. Additional country-specific assessment should be undertaken to measure trends over time and the public perceptions of key aspects of government responses in other countries.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper develops and validates COVID-SCORE-10, a ten-item survey measuring public perceptions of government COVID-19 responses, using 13,426 respondents across 19 countries in June 2020. It reports satisfactory reliability and unidimensionality, with country scores ranging from 35.76 (Ecuador) to 80.48 (China) and associations with trust in government and COVID-19 case/mortality indicators.

Key findings

  • COVID-SCORE-10 showed internal reliability: Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92, and the first PCA component explained 60% of variance with remaining eigenvalues below 1, indicating the tool is reliable and unidimensional.
  • Among 13,426 respondents in 19 countries, mean national scores ranged from 35.76 (SD = 23.05) in Ecuador to 80.48 (SD = 16.31) in China; other high scores included South Korea 74.54 and South Africa 64.62, while low scores included Brazil 36.35 and Poland 41.28.
  • Scores did not vary significantly by gender, age group, education, or income level; the greatest heterogeneity was observed between countries. The highest-scoring item was item 10 on international/WHO cooperation (average 3.53), and the lowest was item 9 on mental health services (average 2.79).
  • Country scores correlated with trust in government to address unexpected health threats (r = 0.64, β = 45.8 [20.0, 71.7]) and Wellcome general trust in national government (r = 0.58, β = 37.6 [10.1, 65.1]); they were negatively associated with COVID-19 cases per million (r = -0.37) and self/family COVID-19 illness (r = -0.34), with no observed correlation with HDI (r = 0.07), EIU Democracy Index (r = 0.04), or World Bank income level.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional online survey conducted 16–20 June 2020 with 13,426 adults aged 18+ from 19 countries, ranging from 619 to 773 participants per country; random stratified sampling by age, gender, and education (plus US race/ethnicity), weighted to population estimates, using multiple international online panel providers.
  • The COVID-SCORE-10 instrument asked respondents to rate ten government responsibilities on a 1–5 scale; responses were summed, min-max transformed, and multiplied by 100 to produce country-level scores from 0 to 100, with item order randomized and surveys translated into national languages.
  • Analysis included descriptive country/item distributions, demographic comparisons, internal validity via Cronbach’s alpha and PCA, and external validity via univariate regressions and Pearson correlations with country-level variables including World Bank income level, EIU Democracy Index, HDI, Wellcome trust, COVID-19 cases/deaths, and self/family illness.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: cross-sectional data do not permit causal claims; interpretation of “government responses” is complicated by varying governance structures, including subnational governments; and despite precautions, inadequate representation of some marginalized segments may have introduced response bias affecting country scores or associations.
  • Evident from the text: associations are measured at the country level, so they cannot support individual-level inference; online panel recruitment may not fully represent the general population; and China was excluded from analyses using the Wellcome Global Monitor trust variable because responses were not available.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0240011

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 4 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The proportion of 'yes' responses to the survey item assessing trust in government to successfully address unexpected health threats, including COVID-19, had a strong positive correlation with mean country COVID-SCORE (r = 0.64, β = 45.8 [20.0, 71.7]).

    “the proportion of “yes” responses to the survey item assessing “trust in the government to successfully address unexpected health threats, including COVID-19” had a strong correlation with the mean country score (r = 0.64, β = 45.8 [20.0, 71.7])”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.
    • Rests on an assumption: The survey item assessing trust in the government to successfully address unexpected health threats, including COVID-19, is a valid measure of trust.
  • Findingown data

    No relationship was found between World Bank income level and mean country COVID-SCORE.

    “No relationship was found between World Bank income level and the mean country score”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.
  • Findingown data

    Country COVID-SCORE had no observed correlation with the country HDI score (r = 0.07, β = 7.3 [-43.5, 58.1]).

    “The country score did not have any observed correlations with the country HDI score (r = 0.07, β = 7.3 [-43.5, 58.1])”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.
  • Findingown data

    The US had the most variability in COVID-SCORE responses.

    “The country with the most variability in its responses was the US as there is a uniform distribution of people rating the government response well and a similar distribution scoring it poorly”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.
  • Findingown data

    Country COVID-SCORE had no observed correlation with the EIU Democracy Index score (r = 0.04, β = 0.26 [-2.7, 3.2]).

    “or with the EIU Democracy Index score (r = 0.04, β = 0.26 [-2.7, 3.2])”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.
  • May combine two claims. 18
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    China had the highest COVID-SCORE (80.48), followed by South Korea (74.54) and South Africa (64.62).

    “China had the highest score, 80.48 (SD = 16.31), followed by South Korea with 74.54 (SD = 18.61) and South Africa with 64.62 (SD = 22.94)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The PCA found that items 6, 4, and 7 contributed the most weight to the first component, while items 1, 10, and 2 contributed the least weight.

    “The PCA found that items 6, 4, and 7, respectively, contributed the most weight to the first component with items 1, 10, and 2, respectively, contributing the least weight”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    China and South Korea had the lowest variability in COVID-SCORE scores, indicating greater homogeneity in perceptions.

    “the lowest amount of variability in scores was seen in China and South Korea, indicating greater homogeneity in perceptions among responses, which tended to be very positive”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Heterogeneity in COVID-SCORE responses was observed across age, gender, education and income, with the greatest amount of heterogeneity observed between countries.

    “Heterogeneity in responses was observed across age, gender, education and income with the greatest amount of heterogeneity observed between countries”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The first principal component of the COVID-SCORE-10 items explains 60% of variance, with the remaining factors having eigenvalues below 1.

    “the first component of the PCA explained 60% of variance with the remaining factors having eigenvalues below 1”
    • Also stated in: § Validation of the score · plain
      “the first component of the PCA explained 60% of variance with the remaining factors having eigenvalues below 1”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In India, respondents with middle and high education levels scored the government higher, while those with low education had greater variability in scores.

    “in India those with middle and high education levels scored the government higher, whereas those with a low education level had greater variability in their scores”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher-scoring countries were primarily located in Asia while lower-scoring countries were found in Latin America and Europe.

    “Higher-scoring countries were primarily located in Asia while lower-scoring countries were found in Latin America and Europe”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    COVID-SCORE values did not vary significantly across gender, age group, education, or income level.

    “scores did not vary significantly across gender, age group, education, or income level, as illustrated in the boxplots in Fig 1B–1E respectively”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.
    • Rests on an assumption: The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At the country level, age, gender, education, income, World Bank income level, level of human development, and degree to which a country is democratic were not associated with the overall country score.

    “At the country level, age, gender, education, income, World Bank income level, level of human development, and degree to which a country is democratic were not associated with the overall country score.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    COVID-SCORE-10 is reliable and unidimensional.

    “We found that COVID-SCORE-10 is reliable and unidimensional.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
      “The internal validity of the instrument is strongly supported by the value of Cronbach’s alpha for the survey instrument and the results of the PCA indicating that it is unidimensional.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Item 6 (continued access to necessary services) scored 3.16, closest to the mean of all items (3.11).

    “Globally, item 6 (assessing continued access to necessary services) was scored (3.16) closest to the mean of all items (3.11) and was scored above 4.00 only in China and Singapore.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Sample sizes were based on country studies comparing results by demographic characteristic groups.

    “Sample sizes were based on country studies comparing results by demographic characteristic groups (eg age and income groups)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    A pilot study was conducted prior to data collection to test the validity of the content and reliability of the questions with experts and members of the general public, and its data were used to revise the questions.

    “Prior to data collection, a pilot study was conducted to test the validity of the content and reliability of the questions with both experts and members of the general public. Data from this pilot study were used to revise the questions in terms of semantics and comprehension”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The number of participants who could enrol in each stratum was calculated to reflect the distribution in the general population based on census/survey estimates.

    “The number of participants who could enrol in each of these strata was calculated to reflect the distribution in the general population based on census/survey estimates provided by the World Bank and CIA World Factbook”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study utilized a minimum of two online panel providers per country to reduce coverage bias, except in Sweden where all data were collected by Dynata.

    “The study utilized a minimum of two online panel providers per country to reduce the coverage bias produced by the proprietary nature of each online panel (except in Sweden where all data were collected by Dynata)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The margins of error ranged between 3.5 and 3.9 percentage points.

    “The margins of error ranged between 3.5 and 3.9 percentage points”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Data were weighted by strata with each stratum requiring a minimum of 50 participants.

    “Data were weighted by strata with each stratum requiring a minimum of 50 participants”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The order of the ten COVID-SCORE-10 items was randomized for each respondent to reduce question order effect.

    “In order to reduce the impact of the question order effect, i.e. to limit potential bias influencing answer choices, the order of the ten items of the COVID-SCORE-10, was randomized for each respondent”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The COVID-SCORE-10 tool is reliable and unidimensional.

    “strongly indicating that the tool is both reliable and unidimensional”
    • Also stated in: § Validation of the score · boosted
      “strongly indicating that the tool is both reliable and unidimensional”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Worldometer data have been cited in more than 6,000 peer-reviewed journal articles.

    “the website’s data have been cited in more than 6,000 peer-reviewed journal articles [16, 17]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [16] Worldometer. COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic. 2020. p. 1–22.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] Worldometer. COVID-19 data [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 30]. Available from: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/about/#sources

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Respondents' identities were verified using IP addresses and mobile phones to ensure each participant was real and unique.

    “Respondents’ identities were verified using IP addresses and their mobile phones were verified to ensure that each participant was real and unique upon initial registration”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Interpretation of 'government responses' must be broadly considered given that governance structures (including subnational governments) vary in their pandemic responsibilities.

    “Interpretation of “government responses” must be broadly considered given that governance structures (including subnational governments) vary in their pandemic responsibilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Responses from China were not available for the Wellcome Global Monitor trust variable, and China was therefore excluded from analyses using this variable.

    “Responses from China were not available, and China was therefore excluded from analyses using this variable [22]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] Wellcome. Wellcome Global Monitor 2018 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jun 30]. Available from: https://wellcome.ac.uk/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    COVID-SCORE has a wide range of research applications as political and social scientists continue to explore how trust in government influences public behavior in the context of major health threats.

    “COVID-SCORE also has a wide range of research applications as political and social scientists continue to explore how trust in government influences public behavior in the context of major health threats.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both the overall ratings and the degree of variability in responses offer valuable guidance to decisionmakers.

    “Our data suggest that both the overall ratings and the degree of variability in responses offer valuable guidance to decisionmakers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Methodological limitations of inadequate representation of some segments of society, such as those most marginalized, may have introduced a response bias that could have altered their country's summative score or its associations with other variables.

    “Furthermore, although we have taken precautions to achieve representative samples from each country, the methodological limitations of inadequate representation of some segments of a society, such as those most marginalized, may have introduced a response bias that could have altered their country’s summative score or its associations with other variables.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 10-item instrument validated in this study is easy to administer and yields simple scores that can inform policy debates and guide the design and implementation of COVID-19 prevention, testing and treatment initiatives including communications initiatives.

    “The 10-item instrument that we have validated in this study is easy to administer and yields simple scores that can inform policy debates and can guide the design and implementation of COVID-19 prevention, testing and treatment initiatives including communications initiatives.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
27 of 27

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Online panel respondents, after weighting, are representative of the general population in each country.

    “The number of participants who could enrol in each of these strata was calculated to reflect the distribution in the general population based on census/survey estimates provided by the World Bank and CIA World Factbook”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The translations of the survey are semantically and culturally equivalent across languages.

    “All translators and proofreaders were native speakers who lived in the country to be surveyed”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The survey item assessing trust in the government to successfully address unexpected health threats, including COVID-19, is a valid measure of trust.

    “The proportion of those surveyed responding “yes” to an item in the study instrument that assesses trust in the government to successfully address unexpected health threats, including COVID-19,which was used in this study to internally validate COVID-SCORE-10”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The ten responsibilities measured by COVID-SCORE-10 are key responsibilities of government in COVID-19 response.

    “we developed and applied a novel instrument, COVID-SCORE-10, to measure public perception of ten key responsibilities of government.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Public perceptions of government responses are a meaningful measure of government response effectiveness.

    “We set out to measure public perceptions of government COVID-19 pandemic response efforts in 19 of the most heavily affected countries and to identify the key factors associated with those perceptions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    COVID-19 mortality per million is a valid and comparable indicator of a country's pandemic burden across countries.

    “Mortality per million from COVID-19, the proportion of respondents who reported that they or a family member had become sick with COVID-19, trust in the national government, as measured by the Wellcome Global Monitor, and trust in the government to successfully address unexpected health threats, as measured in this study, were associated with the COVID-SCORE in expected directions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Wellcome Global Monitor measure of trust in national government is comparable across countries.

    “trust in the national government, as measured by the Wellcome Global Monitor”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The proportion of respondents who reported that they or a family member had become sick with COVID-19 is a valid measure of COVID-19 burden.

    “the proportion of respondents who reported that they or a family member had become sick with COVID-19”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    COVID-19 cases per million is a valid and comparable indicator of pandemic burden across countries.

    “its number of COVID-19 cases per million (-0.36)”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Ecuador's score standard deviation differs between the text and table

    Minor

    The results text gives Ecuador's COVID-SCORE standard deviation as 0.68, whereas Table 1 gives 23.05.

  • Mortality regression confidence interval is inconsistent

    Minor

    The results text reports a lower confidence limit of -0.003, which excludes its reported coefficient of -0.01. Table 2 instead gives the lower limit as -0.03.

  • Items 1 and 7 are not below all other item means

    Minor

    The discussion says items 1 and 7 scored below the means for all other items, but it also identifies item 9, at 2.79, as the lowest-scoring item. Table 1 likewise lists item 9 below both item 1 and item 7.

  • Countries scoring above 4 on item 6 are misidentified

    Minor

    The discussion names China and Singapore, but Table 1 gives item 6 scores of 4.26 for China, 4.19 for South Korea, and 3.30 for Singapore.

4 of 4

Cites

4 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. JJV Bavel, Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-, 4, 460
  2. 2020, Strengthening the Health Systems Response to COVID-19—Technical guidance #6

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lazarus, J. V., Ratzan, S., Palayew, A., Billari, F. C., Binagwaho, A., Kimball, S., Larson, H. J., Melegaro, A., Rabin, K., White, T. M., & El-Mohandes, A.
Affiliations
  • Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ES)
  • City University of New York (US)
  • Bocconi University (IT)
  • Emerson College (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Lazarus, Jeffrey V.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2020-10-06
Volume
15
Issue
10
Pages
e0240011
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0240011
PMC
PMC7538106
OpenAlex
W3092412936
Semantic Scholar
4b68e4539bc0ce2b2a9901e624097be27b6a64a0
Cited by
232
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 9
FWCI
55.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Research Foundation of The City University of New York (90057-00-99)
  • Università Bocconi
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, public perception, government response, public trust in government, COVID-19 mortality, COVID-19 morbidity, socio-economic development, democracy, demographic heterogeneity, citizen participation
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, China, Cross-Sectional Studies, Ecuador, Female, Government, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumonia, Viral, Public Health, Public Opinion, Quarantine, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Coronavirus Infections, Principal Component Analysis, Trust, Young Adult, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review