Mixed-methods study of university students’ perceptions of COVID-19 and media consumption from March 2020 –April 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal mixed-methods research is necessary to understand the changing dynamics of pandemic perceptions, the adoption of health behaviours, and use of media during a public health emergency. During the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, we used a mixed-methods approach to survey young adults attending a large Canadian public university. Six online convenience survey samples were collected (Spring 2020, Summer 2020, Fall 2020, Spring 2021, Fall 2021, Spring 2022) (n = 4932) and 110 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Female gender was associated with higher perceptions of severity, susceptibility, and the adoption of new health behaviours. Perceptions of severity and anxiety/fear about contracting COVID-19 after reading/hearing a news report decreased overall over time, while perceptions of susceptibility increased through time overall. Social media was the most used form of media and was the form of media that participants judged to make them feel most anxious/fearful about contracting COVID-19. Those who felt anxious after hearing a COVID-19 news report were 8.43 times more likely to judge COVID-19 as severe and 2.07 times more likely to judge their own susceptibility as high. Interviews revealed perceptions of information overload, passive information intake, and a narrowed geographical focus over time. The decrease in judgements of COVID-19 severity with the accompanying increase in judgements of susceptibility over the first two years of the pandemic demonstrate the dynamics of changing pandemic attitudes. Health communication efforts targeting university students in future major health events need to consider these shifting dynamics and ensure that health information distributed via social media meets the needs of university students.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".