Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association Between Public Knowledge About COVID-19, Trust in Information Sources, and Adherence to Social Distancing: Cross-Sectional Survey

Open access
Fridman, Ilona, Lucas, Nicole, Henke, Debra, Zigler, Christina K·2020·JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
DOI 10.2196/22060
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The success of behavioral interventions and policies designed to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends on how well individuals are informed about both the consequences of infection and the steps that should be taken to reduce the impact of the disease. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate associations between public knowledge about COVID-19, adherence to social distancing, and public trust in government information sources (eg, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), private sources (eg, FOX and CNN), and social networks (eg, Facebook and Twitter) to inform future policies related to critical information distribution. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey (N=1243) between April 10 and 14, 2020. Data collection was stratified by US region and other demographics to ensure representativeness of the sample. Results: Government information sources were the most trusted among the public. However, we observed trends in the data that suggested variations in trust by age and gender. White and older populations generally expressed higher trust in government sources, while non-White and younger populations expressed higher trust in private sources (eg, CNN) and social networks (eg, Twitter). Trust in government sources was positively associated with accurate knowledge about COVID-19 and adherence to social distancing. However, trust in private sources (eg, FOX and CNN) was negatively associated with knowledge about COVID-19. Similarly, trust in social networks (eg, Facebook and Twitter) was negatively associated with both knowledge and adherence to social distancing. Conclusions: During pandemics such as the COVID-19 outbreak, policy makers should carefully consider the quality of information disseminated through private sources and social networks. Furthermore, when disseminating urgent health information, a variety of information sources should be used to ensure that diverse populations have timely access to critical knowledge.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/22060

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Fridman, I., Lucas, N., Henke, D., & Zigler, C. K.
Venue
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2020-09-15
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
e22060
ISSN
2369-2960 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/22060
OpenAlex
W3084738750
Cited by
264
References
24
FWCI
54.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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.

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.