Gooberman-Hill Rachael, Taylor Michelle L, Maude Ulrika, Yardley Lucy, Huxtable Richard, Stubbs Jo, Peters Tim J
Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, University of Bristol, Royal Fort House, Bristol, BS8 1UH, UK.
School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Wellcome Open Res. 2024 Dec 5;6:166. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16780.1. eCollection 2021.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, references to scientific findings have permeated public-facing communications. Understanding how members of the public view science, scientists and scientific uncertainty should enhance approaches to communication and individuals' decisions to engage with public health measures, including restrictions and vaccination programmes. This article provides descriptive statistics regarding public views and their univariable associations with key variables: age, gender, ethnicity, keyworker status, shielding status, caring responsibilities, and coronavirus exposure.
A survey was conducted on our behalf by YouGov in November 2020. The survey asked about: level of public trust in scientists and scientific information; changes in trust between March and November 2020; views about communication of scientific uncertainty; confidence in the accuracy of scientific findings; and views about whether public information accurately represents coronavirus science.
The sample comprised 2,025 individuals in England; 40.5% were ≥55 years old, 51.1% were female; 12.3% identified as members of an ethnic minority/mixed ethnicity. Trust was highest among older respondents and those who identified as of white ethnicity. The concurrent (November 2020) levels of reported trust in scientific information about coronavirus were generally lower than those reported retrospectively for the pandemic's start (March 2020). There was higher trust and positivity about science among people who had been shielding and among those who had not contracted coronavirus. Around half of respondents did not think that the uncertainty in science was conveyed much or at all, most were confident in the accuracy of coronavirus science, and around half thought that public information was a true representation of the science.
Our study indicates that there is room to improve trust and communication in science. As well as multivariable analyses to explore interrelationships, further research could examine reasons behind change in trust over time and any patterns due to age, ethnicity, and shielding status.
在整个新冠疫情期间，对科学发现的提及贯穿于面向公众的沟通之中。了解公众如何看待科学、科学家以及科学的不确定性，应能改进沟通方式，并有助于个人决定是否参与公共卫生措施，包括限制措施和疫苗接种计划。本文提供了关于公众观点及其与关键变量（年龄、性别、种族、关键工作者身份、防护状态、照料责任和新冠病毒暴露情况）的单变量关联的描述性统计数据。
舆观调查公司于2020年11月代表我们开展了一项调查。该调查询问了：公众对科学家和科学信息的信任程度；2020年3月至11月期间信任度的变化；对科学不确定性沟通的看法；对科学发现准确性的信心；以及对公共信息是否准确呈现新冠病毒科学的看法。
样本包括2025名英格兰居民；40.5%的人年龄≥55岁，51.1%为女性；12.3%的人认定为少数族裔/混合种族成员。老年受访者和白人受访者的信任度最高。2020年11月报告的对新冠病毒科学信息的信任水平普遍低于疫情开始时（2020年3月）的回顾性报告水平。在进行防护的人群以及未感染新冠病毒的人群中，对科学的信任度和积极性更高。约一半的受访者认为科学中的不确定性根本没有或几乎没有得到传达，大多数人对新冠病毒科学的准确性有信心，约一半的人认为公共信息真实反映了科学。
我们的研究表明，在科学信任和沟通方面仍有改进空间。除了进行多变量分析以探索相互关系外，进一步的研究可以考察信任随时间变化的原因以及因年龄、种族和防护状态而产生的任何模式。
