• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在新冠疫情期间,信任专家而非信任国家领导人会导致对推荐行动的更多采用。

Trust in experts, not trust in national leadership, leads to greater uptake of recommended actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

作者信息

Ahluwalia Sangeeta C, Edelen Maria O, Qureshi Nabeel, Etchegaray Jason M

机构信息

Department of Behavioral and Policy Sciences RAND Corporation Santa Monica California USA.

Department of Health Policy and Management UCLA Fielding School of Public Health Los Angeles California USA.

出版信息

Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy. 2021 Sep;12(3):283-302. doi: 10.1002/rhc3.12219. Epub 2021 Apr 27.

DOI:10.1002/rhc3.12219
PMID:34226844
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8242428/
Abstract

Evidence suggests that people vary in their desire to undertake protective actions during a health emergency, and that trust in authorities may influence decision making. We sought to examine how the trust in health experts and trust in White House leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic impacts individuals' decisions to adopt recommended protective actions such as mask-wearing. A mediation analysis was conducted using cross-sectional U.S. survey data collected between March 27 and 30, 2020, to elucidate how individuals' trust in health experts and White House leadership, their perceptions of susceptibility and severity to COVID-19, and perceived benefits of protecting against COVID-19, influenced their uptake of recommended protective actions. Trust in health experts was associated with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 and benefits of taking action, which led to greater uptake of recommended actions. Trust in White House leadership was associated with lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and was not associated with taking recommended actions. Having trust in health experts is a greater predictor of individuals' uptake of protective actions than having trust in White House leadership. Public health messaging should emphasize the severity of COVID-19 and the benefits of protecting oneself while ensuring consistency and transparency to regain trust in health experts.

摘要

有证据表明,在健康紧急情况期间,人们采取保护行动的意愿各不相同,而且对当局的信任可能会影响决策。我们试图研究在新冠疫情期间,对健康专家的信任和对白宫领导层的信任如何影响个人采取诸如佩戴口罩等推荐保护行动的决策。利用2020年3月27日至30日收集的美国横断面调查数据进行了中介分析,以阐明个人对健康专家和白宫领导层的信任、他们对新冠病毒易感性和严重性的认知,以及预防新冠病毒的感知益处,如何影响他们对推荐保护行动的采纳。对健康专家的信任与更高的新冠病毒严重性感知和采取行动的益处相关,这导致对推荐行动的更多采纳。对白宫领导层的信任与更低的新冠病毒易感性感知相关,且与采取推荐行动无关。与信任白宫领导层相比,信任健康专家是个人采纳保护行动的更强预测因素。公共卫生信息应强调新冠病毒的严重性以及自我保护的益处,同时确保一致性和透明度,以重新赢得对健康专家的信任。

相似文献

1
Trust in experts, not trust in national leadership, leads to greater uptake of recommended actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.在新冠疫情期间,信任专家而非信任国家领导人会导致对推荐行动的更多采用。
Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy. 2021 Sep;12(3):283-302. doi: 10.1002/rhc3.12219. Epub 2021 Apr 27.
2
Information Sources, Risk Perception, and Efficacy Appraisal's Prediction of Engagement in Protective Behaviors Against COVID-19 in China: Repeated Cross-sectional Survey.信息来源、风险认知与效能评估对中国 COVID-19 防护行为参与度的预测:重复横断面调查
JMIR Hum Factors. 2021 Jan 12;8(1):e23232. doi: 10.2196/23232.
3
The Relationship between COVID-19 Protection Behaviors and Pandemic-Related Knowledge, Perceptions, Worry Content, and Public Trust in a Turkish Sample.土耳其样本中新冠疫情防护行为与大流行相关知识、认知、担忧内容及公众信任之间的关系
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Nov 27;10(12):2027. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10122027.
4
I Think, Therefore I Act: The Influence of Critical Reasoning Ability on Trust and Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic.我思故我为:批判性思维能力对 COVID-19 大流行期间信任和行为的影响。
Risk Anal. 2022 May;42(5):1073-1085. doi: 10.1111/risa.13833. Epub 2021 Oct 2.
5
The Roles of Trust in Government and Sense of Community in the COVID-19 Contact Tracing Privacy Calculus: Mixed Method Study Using a 2-Wave Survey and In-Depth Interviews.信任政府和社区意识在 COVID-19 接触者追踪隐私计算中的作用:使用两波调查和深入访谈的混合方法研究。
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2024 Mar 7;12:e48986. doi: 10.2196/48986.
6
Cross-sectional survey of changes in knowledge, attitudes and practice of mask use in Sydney and Melbourne during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.2020 年 COVID-19 大流行期间悉尼和墨尔本口罩使用知识、态度和实践变化的横断面调查。
BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 22;12(6):e057860. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057860.
7
Trends in educational disparities in preventive behaviours, risk perception, perceived effectiveness and trust in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.新冠疫情大流行第一年德国预防行为、风险感知、感知有效性和信任方面教育差距的变化趋势。
BMC Public Health. 2022 May 6;22(1):903. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13341-3.
8
COVID-19 related messaging, beliefs, information sources, and mitigation behaviors in Virginia: a cross-sectional survey in the summer of 2020.2020 年夏季弗吉尼亚州 COVID-19 相关信息、信念、信息来源和缓解行为的横断面调查。
PeerJ. 2024 Jan 8;12:e16714. doi: 10.7717/peerj.16714. eCollection 2024.
9
Source of Information on Intentions to Adopt Protective Behaviours During COVID-19 in China.中国民众在 COVID-19 期间采取防护措施意向信息来源。
Inquiry. 2022 Jan-Dec;59:469580221090411. doi: 10.1177/00469580221090411.
10
Trust and transparency in times of crisis: Results from an online survey during the first wave (April 2020) of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK.信任与透明度在危机时期:英国 COVID-19 疫情第一波(2020 年 4 月)期间在线调查结果。
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 16;16(2):e0239247. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239247. eCollection 2021.

引用本文的文献

1
How populist-aligned views affect receipt of non-COVID-19-related public health interventions: a systematic review of quantitative studies.民粹主义倾向观点如何影响非新冠疫情相关公共卫生干预措施的接受度:定量研究的系统评价
BMC Public Health. 2025 Jun 4;25(1):2075. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-23265-3.
2
Wearing face masks when no longer mandatory: An exploratory study about attitudinal and psychological health factors in a large Italian sample.口罩不再强制佩戴时:对意大利一个大型样本中态度和心理健康因素的探索性研究。
PLoS One. 2025 Mar 4;20(3):e0314607. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314607. eCollection 2025.
3
Exploring trust dynamics in health information systems: the impact of patients' health conditions on information source preferences.探索健康信息系统中的信任动态:患者健康状况对信息源偏好的影响。
Front Public Health. 2024 Nov 22;12:1478502. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1478502. eCollection 2024.
4
Adherence to COVID-19 measures and the associated factors: evidence from a two-wave longitudinal study in Singapore.遵守 COVID-19 措施及相关因素:来自新加坡两波纵向研究的证据。
BMC Public Health. 2024 Oct 15;24(1):2839. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-20256-8.
5
Trust in public health policy in the time of the COVID-19 epidemic in Israel.新冠疫情期间,公众对以色列公共卫生政策的信任。
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2024 Apr 25;13(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s13584-024-00607-x.
6
Best practice guidelines for citizen science in mental health research: systematic review and evidence synthesis.心理健康研究中公民科学的最佳实践指南:系统评价与证据综合
Front Psychiatry. 2023 Sep 8;14:1175311. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1175311. eCollection 2023.
7
Characterising trusted spokespeople in noncommunicable disease prevention: A systematic scoping review.非传染性疾病预防中可信代言人的特征:一项系统的范围综述。
Prev Med Rep. 2022 Jul 28;29:101934. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101934. eCollection 2022 Oct.
8
Risk, hazards and crisis: Covid-19 and beyond.风险、危害与危机:新冠疫情及以后
Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy. 2022 Mar;13(1):6-8. doi: 10.1002/rhc3.12245. Epub 2022 Mar 7.
9
The Prevention Behaviors and Impact Mechanisms Among Different Chinese Social Classes at the Early Stage of COVID-19 Pandemic.新冠疫情初期中国不同社会阶层的预防行为及影响机制
Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022 Mar 20;15:711-723. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S345380. eCollection 2022.
10
Different roles of interpersonal trust and institutional trust in COVID-19 pandemic control.人际信任和制度信任在新冠疫情防控中的不同作用。
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Jan;293:114677. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114677. Epub 2021 Dec 22.

本文引用的文献

1
Pandemic publishing: A bibliometric review of COVID-19 research in the crisis and disaster literature.大流行时期的出版:对危机与灾难文献中新冠疫情研究的文献计量学综述
Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy. 2022 Dec;13(4):302-321. doi: 10.1002/rhc3.12262. Epub 2022 Dec 13.
2
A Qualitative Study of Pregnant Women's Perspectives on Antibiotic Use for Mom and Child: Implications for Developing Tailored Health Education Interventions.一项关于孕妇对母婴使用抗生素看法的定性研究:对制定针对性健康教育干预措施的启示
Antibiotics (Basel). 2020 Oct 15;9(10):704. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9100704.
3
The Emotional Path to Action: Empathy Promotes Physical Distancing and Wearing of Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic.从情感层面促进行动:同理心助力新冠疫情期间保持社交距离和佩戴口罩
Psychol Sci. 2020 Nov;31(11):1363-1373. doi: 10.1177/0956797620964422. Epub 2020 Sep 29.
4
Protective Behavior against COVID-19 among the Public in Kuwait: An Examination of the Protection Motivation Theory, Trust in Government, and Sociodemographic Factors.科威特公众对 COVID-19 的防护行为:保护动机理论、对政府的信任和社会人口因素的考察。
Soc Work Public Health. 2020 Sep 1;35(7):546-556. doi: 10.1080/19371918.2020.1806171.
5
Optimism-pessimism, conspiracy theories and general trust as factors contributing to COVID-19 related behavior - A cross-cultural study.乐观主义-悲观主义、阴谋论与一般信任作为影响COVID-19相关行为的因素——一项跨文化研究
Pers Individ Dif. 2020 Dec 1;167:110216. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110216. Epub 2020 Jun 25.
6
Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.物理隔离、口罩和眼部防护预防 SARS-CoV-2 和 COVID-19 的人际传播:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Lancet. 2020 Jun 27;395(10242):1973-1987. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9. Epub 2020 Jun 1.
7
Inferring change points in the spread of COVID-19 reveals the effectiveness of interventions.推断 COVID-19 传播中的变化点可揭示干预措施的效果。
Science. 2020 Jul 10;369(6500). doi: 10.1126/science.abb9789. Epub 2020 May 15.
8
Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks.呼气中呼吸道病毒的释放和口罩的效果。
Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-680. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2. Epub 2020 Apr 3.
9
Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic.新冠疫情期间口罩的合理使用
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434-436. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30134-X. Epub 2020 Mar 20.
10
Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk.在线panel 调查在社会科学研究中的运用:超越 Mechanical Turk 的抽样方法。
Behav Res Methods. 2019 Oct;51(5):2022-2038. doi: 10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7.