Murillo Joshua, Pulido Tessa R, Loyd Aerika Brittian, Subica Andrew M, Yen Irene H, Payán Denise D
Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA.
Department of Health, Society and Behavior, Joe C. Wen School of Population & Public Health, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Prev Med Rep. 2025 May 3;54:103098. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103098. eCollection 2025 Jun.
This study investigates how local policy stakeholders viewed and used research evidence, data, and (mis)information in county policy discussions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
We employed document and exploratory content analysis methods to examine Board of Supervisor materials ( = 534 policy documents) from general and special/emergency meetings (March 2020 - December 2022). We purposefully selected three jurisdictions from California, USA with varying socio-demographic, political, and health care characteristics as case studies.
Many residents who commented during local policy discussions contested the: 1) validity of health data provided (i.e., mortality rates), and 2) efficacy of proposed preventive measures like mask wearing and vaccine receipt. While government officials and healthcare personnel referenced research evidence and data as justification for these measures, several stakeholders expressed skepticism about the information presented in all three counties. Perceptions of misinformation included statements by residents that questioned the COVID-19 information provided by government officials or reflected a belief that federal and state government agencies (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC) were sources of misinformation. An emergent finding was that many residents voiced uncertainty and requested more information about local pandemic conditions and policy mitigation strategies.
Results reveal a distrust of public health and government officials and data/information shared in local policymaking debates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Local health departments may benefit from investing in efforts to increase their credibility as trusted sources of health information among community members. Local government agencies should develop transparent health promotion campaigns to identify and dispel misinformation.
本研究调查了在新冠疫情期间,地方政策利益相关者在县政策讨论中如何看待和使用研究证据、数据及(错误)信息。
我们采用文件和探索性内容分析方法,审查了监事会材料(n = 534份政策文件),这些材料来自常规会议和特别/紧急会议(2020年3月至2022年12月)。我们有目的地从美国加利福尼亚州选取了三个具有不同社会人口、政治和医疗保健特征的司法管辖区作为案例研究。
在地方政策讨论中发表意见的许多居民对以下方面提出了质疑:1)所提供健康数据(即死亡率)的有效性,以及2)诸如佩戴口罩和接种疫苗等拟议预防措施的有效性。虽然政府官员和医护人员引用研究证据和数据作为这些措施的依据,但一些利益相关者对所有三个县所呈现的信息表示怀疑。对错误信息的认知包括居民对政府官员提供的新冠信息提出质疑的陈述,或反映出认为联邦和州政府机构(如疾病控制与预防中心,CDC)是错误信息来源的信念。一个新出现的发现是,许多居民表达了不确定性,并要求提供更多关于当地疫情状况和政策缓解策略的信息。
结果显示,在新冠疫情期间,地方政策制定辩论中存在对公共卫生和政府官员以及所共享数据/信息的不信任。地方卫生部门可能会受益于努力提高其作为社区成员可信赖的健康信息来源的可信度。地方政府机构应开展透明的健康促进活动,以识别和消除错误信息。