MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3040975828 · doi:10.1101/2020.07.07.20147413

A national cross-sectional survey of public perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic

2020· preprint· en· W3040975828 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jeanna Parsons Leigh, Kirsten M. Fiest, Rebecca Brundin‐Mather, Kara M. Plotnikoff, Andrea Soo, Emma E. Sypes, Liam Whalen-Browne, Sofia B. Ahmed, Karen E. A. Burns, Alison Fox‐Robichaud, Shelly Kupsch, Shelly Longmore, Srinivas Murthy, Daniel J. Niven, Bram Rochwerg, Henry T. Stelfox

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalImpactUniversity of CalgaryLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRespondentSocial distancePandemicMisinformationPublic healthGovernment (linguistics)Cross-sectional studyDescriptive statisticsPsychologyHealth Information National Trends SurveySocial mediaMedicineHealth careFamily medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthPolitical scienceNursingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Efforts to mitigate the global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have largely relied on broad compliance with public health recommendations yet navigating the high volume of evolving information and misinformation related to SARS-CoV-2 can be challenging. We assessed national public perceptions (e.g., severity, concerns, health), knowledge (e.g., transmission, information sources), and behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) related to COVID-19 in Canada to understand public perspectives and inform future public health initiatives. Methods We administered a national online survey with the goal of obtaining responses from 2000 adults residing in Canada. Respondent sampling was stratified by age, sex, and region. We used descriptive statistics to summarize respondent characteristics and tested for significant overall regional differences using chi-squared tests and t-tests, as appropriate. Results We collected 1,996 eligible questionnaires between April 26 th and May 1 st , 2020. One-fifth (20%) of respondents knew someone diagnosed with COVID-19, but few had tested positive themselves (0.6%). Negative impacts of pandemic conditions were evidenced in several areas, including concerns about healthcare (e.g. sufficient equipment, 52%), pandemic stress (45%), and worsening social (49%) and mental/emotional (39%) health. Most respondents (88%) felt they had good to excellent knowledge of virus transmission, and predominantly accessed (74%) and trusted (60%) Canadian news television, newspapers/magazines, or non-government news websites for COVID-19 information. We found high compliance with distancing measures (80% either self-isolating or always physical distancing). We identified regional differences in perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors related to COVID-19. Discussion We found that knowledge about COVID-19 is largely acquired through domestic news sources, which may explain high self-reported compliance with prevention measures. The results highlight the broader impact of a pandemic on the general public’s overall health and wellbeing, outside of personal infection. The study findings should be used to inform public health communications during COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.283
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→