Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Public Opinion about the UK Government during COVID-19 and Implications for Public Health: A Topic Modelling Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Response Data

View ORCID ProfileLiam Wright, View ORCID ProfileAlexandra Burton, View ORCID ProfileAlison McKinlay, Andrew Steptoe, View ORCID ProfileDaisy Fancourt
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.24.21254094
Liam Wright
Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Liam Wright
  • For correspondence: liam.wright.17@ucl.ac.uk
Alexandra Burton
Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alexandra Burton
Alison McKinlay
Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alison McKinlay
Andrew Steptoe
Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daisy Fancourt
Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daisy Fancourt
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Confidence in the central UK Government has declined since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and while this may be linked to specific government actions to curb the spread of the virus, understanding is still incomplete. Examining public opinion is important, as research suggests that low confidence in government increases the extent of non-compliance with infection-dampening rules (for instance, social distancing); however, the detailed reasons for this association are still unclear. To understand public opinion on the central UK government during COVID-19, we used structural topic modelling, a text mining technique, to extract themes from over 4000 free-text survey responses, collected between 14 October and 26 November 2020. We identified eleven topics, among which were topics related to perceived government corruption and cronyism, complaints about inconsistency in rules and messaging, lack of clear planning, and lack of openness and transparency. Participants reported that elements of the government’s approach had made it difficult to comply with guidelines (e.g., changing rules) or were having impacts on mental wellbeing (e.g., inability to plan for the future). Results suggested that consistent, transparent communication and messaging from the government is critical to improving compliance with measures to contain the virus, as well as protecting mental health during health emergencies.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This Covid-19 Social Study was funded by the Nuffield Foundation [WEL/FR-000022583], but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. The study was also supported by the MARCH Mental Health Network funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UK Research and Innovation [ES/S002588/1], and by the Wellcome Trust [221400/Z/20/Z]. DF was funded by the Wellcome Trust [205407/Z/16/Z]. LW is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council through the UCL, Bloomsbury and East London Doctoral Training Partnership [ES/P000592/1]. The study was also supported by HealthWise Wales, the Health and Car Research Wales initiative, which is led by Cardiff University in collaboration with SAIL, Swansea University. The funders had no final role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication. All researchers listed as authors are independent from the funders and all final decisions about the research were taken by the investigators and were unrestricted.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The code used is available at https://osf.io/jw3gb/. The data are not available due to stipulations set out by the ethics committee.

https://osf.io/jw3gb

https://github.com/UCL-BSH/CSSUserGuide

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted March 26, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Public Opinion about the UK Government during COVID-19 and Implications for Public Health: A Topic Modelling Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Response Data
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Public Opinion about the UK Government during COVID-19 and Implications for Public Health: A Topic Modelling Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Response Data
Liam Wright, Alexandra Burton, Alison McKinlay, Andrew Steptoe, Daisy Fancourt
medRxiv 2021.03.24.21254094; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.24.21254094
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Public Opinion about the UK Government during COVID-19 and Implications for Public Health: A Topic Modelling Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Response Data
Liam Wright, Alexandra Burton, Alison McKinlay, Andrew Steptoe, Daisy Fancourt
medRxiv 2021.03.24.21254094; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.24.21254094

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Public and Global Health
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (76)
  • Allergy and Immunology (199)
  • Anesthesia (54)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (492)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (90)
  • Dermatology (57)
  • Emergency Medicine (169)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (214)
  • Epidemiology (5717)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (217)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (871)
  • Geriatric Medicine (88)
  • Health Economics (232)
  • Health Informatics (767)
  • Health Policy (395)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (254)
  • Hematology (105)
  • HIV/AIDS (185)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (6521)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (393)
  • Medical Education (118)
  • Medical Ethics (28)
  • Nephrology (93)
  • Neurology (851)
  • Nursing (44)
  • Nutrition (142)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (164)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (263)
  • Oncology (516)
  • Ophthalmology (164)
  • Orthopedics (44)
  • Otolaryngology (107)
  • Pain Medicine (48)
  • Palliative Medicine (21)
  • Pathology (149)
  • Pediatrics (252)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (147)
  • Primary Care Research (114)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (980)
  • Public and Global Health (2249)
  • Radiology and Imaging (378)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (174)
  • Respiratory Medicine (313)
  • Rheumatology (109)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (82)
  • Sports Medicine (82)
  • Surgery (118)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (34)
  • Urology (42)