A Model of Trust in Online COVID-19 Information and Advice: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people sought information from websites and social media. Understanding the extent to which these sources were trusted is important in relation to health communication. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the key factors influencing UK citizens' trust and intention to act on advice about COVID-19 found via digital resources and to test whether an existing model of trust in eHealth provided a good fit for COVID-19-related information seeking online. We also wished to identify any differences between the evaluation of general information and information relating specifically to COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: In total, 525 people completed an online survey in January 2022 encompassing a general web trust questionnaire, measures of information corroboration, coping perceptions, and intention to act. Data were analyzed using principal component analysis and structural equation modeling. The evaluation responses of general information and COVID-19 vaccine information were also compared. RESULTS: The principal component analysis revealed 5 trust factors: (1) credibility and impartiality, (2) familiarity, (3) privacy, (4) usability, and (5) personal experiences. In the final structural equation modeling model, trust had a significant direct effect on intention to act (β=.65; P<.001). Of the trust factors, credibility and impartiality had a significant positive direct effect on trust (β=.82; P<.001). People searching for vaccination information felt less at risk, less anxious, and more optimistic after reading the information. We noted that most people sought information from "official" sources. Finally, in the context of COVID-19, "credibility and impartiality" remain a key predictor of trust in eHealth resources, but in comparison with previous models of trust in online health information, checking and corroborating information did not form a significant part of trust evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: In times of uncertainty, when faced with a global emergent health concern, people place their trust in familiar websites and rely on the perceived credibility and impartiality of those digital sources above other trust factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".