Abstract
Background The quality of evidence about the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical health interventions is often low, but little is known about the effects of communicating indications of evidence quality to the public.
Methods In two blinded, randomised, controlled, online experiments, US participants (total n=2140) were shown one of several versions of an infographic illustrating the effectiveness of eye protection in reducing COVID-19 transmission. Their trust in the information, understanding, feelings of effectiveness of eye protection, and the likelihood of them adopting it were measured.
Findings Compared to those given no quality cues, participants who were told the quality of the evidence on eye protection was ‘low’, rated the evidence less trustworthy (p=.001), and rated it as subjectively less effective (p=.020). The same effects emerged compared to those who were told the quality of the evidence was ‘high’, and in one of the two studies, those shown ‘low’ quality of evidence said they were less likely to use eye protection (p=.005). Participants who were told the quality of the evidence was ‘high’ showed no significant differences on these measures compared to those given no information about evidence quality.
Interpretation Without quality of evidence cues, participants responded to the evidence about the public health intervention as if it was high quality and this affected their subjective perceptions of its efficacy and trust in the provided information. This raises the ethical dilemma of weighing the importance of transparently stating when the evidence base is actually low quality against evidence that providing such information can decrease trust, perception of intervention efficacy, and likelihood of adopting it.
Funding The Winton Centre for Risk & Evidence Communication, thanks to the David & Claudia Harding Foundation
Research in Context
Evidence before this study
Evidence before this study This is the first quantitative, empirical study, to our knowledge, on the effects of communicating the quality of evidence underlying an effectiveness estimate of a public health intervention on a public audience.
Added value of this study
Added value of this study This study provides novel insights into the effects of quality of evidence communication in a public health context. It is thus of high theoretical as well as translational value.
Implications of all the available evidence
Implications of all the available evidence Members of the public may assume that information around the effectiveness of a measure such as wearing eye protection to protect against COVID-19 are based on high quality evidence if they are given no cues to suggest otherwise. Yet, when given a statement of the quality of the evidence, this can (appropriately) affect their feelings of the trustworthiness of the information and their subjective judgement of the effectiveness of the measure. This raises the issue of whether there is an ethical imperative to communicate the quality of underlying evidence, particularly when it is low, albeit with the recognition that this may reduce uptake of a public health measure.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding through The Winton Centre for Risk & Evidence Communication, thanks to the David & Claudia Harding Foundation
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:
Ethical oversight by the Psychology Research Ethics Committee of the University of Cambridge
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
All data collected for the reported studies (de-identified participant data), along with the questionnaires used, is publicly available at https://osf.io/z6ps9/
