Prevention Insights and Department of Applied Health Science, School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Public Health. 2020 Jun;183:122-125. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.05.004. Epub 2020 May 13.
The emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and subsequent pandemic has led to the most substantive large-scale, open, and public social discussion of epidemiology and science in recent history. In the United States (US), extensive debate has ensued as to the risk posed by the disease, whether the health system is prepared to manage a high volume of critical cases, whether any number of public health responses are necessary and appropriate, and the appropriate ways to prevent, manage, and treat the pandemic. I hypothesized that the interplay between scientists, policymakers, and the public in an open forum was associated with increased overall public trust in science and scientists, but that this was moderated by political orientation and/or religious commitment. In the context of a public health emergency, it is important to understand the degree to which science and scientists are trusted to produce information that can provide reassurance and also can explain the details of a highly complex event such as a viral pandemic while providing actionable recommendations.
The study design was analytic cross-sectional.
Data were obtained on March 17-18, 2020, from a sample of 242 US-based Amazon Mechanical Turk users. Respondents completed a 49-question survey consisting of key sociodemographic variables, political affiliation, religious commitment, and two iterations of the Trust in Science and Scientist Inventory (one for March 2020, and one for December 2019 using retrospective recall). Changes in mean level of trust and interaction with political affiliation and/or religious commitment were assessed using mixed ANOVA via the general linear model.
On a scale from 1 (low trust) to 5 (high trust), the mean level of trust in science and scientists was static; 3.82 in December 2019 and 3.81 in March 2020. Conservative political orientation and high religious commitment were associated with significantly less overall trust in science; the interaction effect suggested that liberal trust in science decreased slightly from December 2019 to March 2020, whereas conservative trust increased slightly.
Counter to my expectations, the overall level of trust in science remained static after the first several months of COVID-19 in the US, although there is some evidence that political orientation was associated with magnitude and directionality of change in trust. Continued examination of these trends is important for understanding public response to epidemiologic recommendations.
2019 年冠状病毒病（COVID-19）的出现及其随后的大流行，导致了最近历史上最实质性的大规模、公开和公共的流行病学和科学讨论。在美国，人们广泛争论这种疾病的风险、卫生系统是否有能力管理大量重症病例、是否有必要采取任何公共卫生措施，以及预防、管理和治疗大流行的适当方法。我假设科学家、政策制定者和公众在公开论坛上的相互作用与公众对科学和科学家的整体信任度增加有关，但这种关系受到政治倾向和/或宗教信仰的调节。在公共卫生紧急情况下，了解科学和科学家在多大程度上被信任来提供信息是很重要的，这些信息可以提供保证，同时还可以解释像病毒大流行这样高度复杂事件的细节，同时提供可操作的建议。
研究设计为分析性横断面研究。
本研究于 2020 年 3 月 17 日至 18 日，从 242 名美国亚马逊 Mechanical Turk 用户中抽取样本，获得数据。受访者完成了一份由 49 个问题组成的调查，其中包括关键的社会人口学变量、政治派别、宗教信仰，以及两次信任科学和科学家的库存（一次是 2020 年 3 月，另一次是 2019 年 12 月，使用回溯回忆）。使用混合方差分析通过一般线性模型评估信任水平的变化及其与政治派别和/或宗教信仰的相互作用。
在 1（低信任）到 5（高信任）的量表上，科学和科学家的总体信任水平保持不变；2019 年 12 月为 3.82，2020 年 3 月为 3.81。保守的政治倾向和较高的宗教信仰与对科学的整体信任度显著降低有关；交互效应表明，自由派对科学的信任度从 2019 年 12 月到 2020 年 3 月略有下降，而保守派的信任度略有上升。
与我的预期相反，在美国 COVID-19 的最初几个月后，科学的总体信任水平保持不变，尽管有证据表明政治倾向与信任变化的幅度和方向有关。继续对这些趋势进行研究，对于了解公众对流行病学建议的反应是很重要的。
