Unwillingness to engage in behaviors that protect against COVID-19: the role of conspiracy beliefs, trust, and endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
COVID-19 Vaccines
/ administration & dosage
Complementary Therapies
Female
Finland
/ epidemiology
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Trust
Vaccination
/ psychology
Young Adult
CAM
COVID-19
Complementary and alternative medicine
Conspiracy
NPI
Non-pharmaceutical interventions
Trust
Vaccine attitudes
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 04 2021
08 04 2021
Historique:
received:
29
10
2020
accepted:
17
03
2021
entrez:
9
4
2021
pubmed:
10
4
2021
medline:
15
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We investigated if people's response to the official recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with conspiracy beliefs related to COVID-19, a distrust in the sources providing information on COVID-19, and an endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The sample consisted of 1325 Finnish adults who filled out an online survey marketed on Facebook. Structural regression analysis was used to investigate whether: 1) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM predict people's response to the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM are related to people's willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Individuals with more conspiracy beliefs and a lower trust in information sources were less likely to have a positive response to the NPIs. Individuals with less trust in information sources and more endorsement of CAM were more unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Distrust in information sources was the strongest and most consistent predictor in all models. Our analyses also revealed that some of the people who respond negatively to the NPIs also have a lower likelihood to take the vaccine. This association was partly related to a lower trust in information sources. Distrusting the establishment to provide accurate information, believing in conspiracy theories, and endorsing treatments and substances that are not part of conventional medicine, are all associated with a more negative response to the official guidelines during COVID-19. How people respond to the guidelines, however, is more strongly and consistently related to the degree of trust they feel in the information sources, than to their tendency to hold conspiracy beliefs or endorse CAM. These findings highlight the need for governments and health authorities to create communication strategies that build public trust.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We investigated if people's response to the official recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with conspiracy beliefs related to COVID-19, a distrust in the sources providing information on COVID-19, and an endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
METHODS
The sample consisted of 1325 Finnish adults who filled out an online survey marketed on Facebook. Structural regression analysis was used to investigate whether: 1) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM predict people's response to the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM are related to people's willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine.
RESULTS
Individuals with more conspiracy beliefs and a lower trust in information sources were less likely to have a positive response to the NPIs. Individuals with less trust in information sources and more endorsement of CAM were more unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Distrust in information sources was the strongest and most consistent predictor in all models. Our analyses also revealed that some of the people who respond negatively to the NPIs also have a lower likelihood to take the vaccine. This association was partly related to a lower trust in information sources.
CONCLUSIONS
Distrusting the establishment to provide accurate information, believing in conspiracy theories, and endorsing treatments and substances that are not part of conventional medicine, are all associated with a more negative response to the official guidelines during COVID-19. How people respond to the guidelines, however, is more strongly and consistently related to the degree of trust they feel in the information sources, than to their tendency to hold conspiracy beliefs or endorse CAM. These findings highlight the need for governments and health authorities to create communication strategies that build public trust.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33832446
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10643-w
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-10643-w
pmc: PMC8027965
doi:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
684Subventions
Organisme : Academy of Finland
ID : 316004
Organisme : Academy of Finland
ID : 316726
Références
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):371-374
pubmed: 32461658
Sci Data. 2020 Aug 27;7(1):285
pubmed: 32855430
Int J Surg. 2020 Jun;78:185-193
pubmed: 32305533
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jun;255:113019
pubmed: 32408085
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Jan;172:89-97
pubmed: 27914936
Patient Educ Couns. 2020 May;103(5):873-876
pubmed: 32336348
BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 2;11(8):e048025
pubmed: 34341047
Vaccine. 2020 Feb 5;38(6):1505-1512
pubmed: 31848051
J Cogn. 2020 Apr 30;3(1):9
pubmed: 32377619
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Oct;238:112407
pubmed: 31366444
R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Oct 14;7(10):201199
pubmed: 33204475
Scand J Public Health. 2018 Jun;46(4):448-455
pubmed: 28975853
Pers Individ Dif. 2021 Apr;172:110590
pubmed: 33518869
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7820):257-261
pubmed: 32512579
J Public Econ. 2020 Dec;192:104316
pubmed: 33162621
Am J Prev Med. 2020 Oct;59(4):493-503
pubmed: 32778354
J Health Psychol. 2022 Mar;27(3):534-547
pubmed: 33016131
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Apr 24;6(2):e19218
pubmed: 32301734
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 01;10(9):e0132562
pubmed: 26325522
Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 18;11:565128
pubmed: 33071892
Glob Transit. 2020;2:76-82
pubmed: 32835202
Natl Health Stat Report. 2015 Feb 10;(79):1-16
pubmed: 25671660
Am Psychol. 2021 Jul-Aug;76(5):744-754
pubmed: 32772540
Vaccine. 2020 Oct 21;38(45):7002-7006
pubmed: 32988688
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 May;19(5):529-536
pubmed: 30928435
Psychol Health Med. 2021 Jan;26(1):1-12
pubmed: 32479113
Curr Psychol. 2022;41(10):7448-7458
pubmed: 34075284
Vaccine. 2014 Apr 17;32(19):2150-9
pubmed: 24598724
Vaccine. 2018 Feb 21;36(9):1227-1234
pubmed: 29395527
Psychol Med. 2022 Jan;52(2):251-263
pubmed: 32436485
BMC Public Health. 2021 Jan 7;21(1):89
pubmed: 33413219
Soc Sci Med. 2022 May;301:114912
pubmed: 35354105
J Travel Med. 2020 May 18;27(3):
pubmed: 32125413
Am Psychol. 2017 Jul-Aug;72(5):459-473
pubmed: 28726454
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Jan;196:106-114
pubmed: 29175699
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 11;22(8):e20634
pubmed: 32716896
Sci Adv. 2020 Jan 29;6(5):eaaw7449
pubmed: 32064329
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2017 Dec;18(3):149-207
pubmed: 29611455
Health Psychol. 2018 Apr;37(4):307-315
pubmed: 29389158
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 02;8(10):e75637
pubmed: 24098391
Psychol Med. 2022 Oct;52(14):3127-3141
pubmed: 33305716
Curr Psychol. 2022;41(8):5621-5630
pubmed: 34305363
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 27;15(7):e0236527
pubmed: 32716918
Psychol Med. 2021 Jul;51(10):1763-1769
pubmed: 32513320
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920
pubmed: 32112714
Pers Individ Dif. 2020 Nov 1;166:110201
pubmed: 32565592
Complement Ther Med. 2003 Mar;11(1):33-8
pubmed: 12667973
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2018 Nov;17(11):989-1004
pubmed: 30359151
Vaccine. 2016 Feb 17;34(8):1018-24
pubmed: 26672676
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 26;12(1):e0170550
pubmed: 28125629
Z Psychol. 2015;223(4):257-266
pubmed: 27453806
Appl Cogn Psychol. 2021 Mar-Apr;35(2):486-496
pubmed: 33362344