Abstract
Mathematical transmission modelling is a key component of scientific evidence used to inform public health policy and became particularly prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic. As key stakeholders, it is vital that the public perception of this set of tools is better understood. To complement a previously published article on the science-policy interface by the authors of this study, novel data were collected via responses to a survey via two methods: via an online panel (“representative” sample) and via social media (“non-probability” sample). Many identical questions were asked separately for the period “prior to” compared to “during” the COVID-19 pandemic.
All respondents were increasingly aware of the use of modelling in informing policy during the pandemic, with significantly higher levels of awareness among social media respondents than online panel respondents. Awareness generally stemmed from the news media and social media during the pandemic. Transmission modelling informing public health policy was perceived as more reliable during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period in both samples, with awareness being positively associated with reliability within both samples and time points, except for social media during the pandemic. Trust in government public health advice remained high across samples and time periods overall but was lower in the period of the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period. The decay in trust was notably greater among social media respondents. Many respondents from both samples explicitly made the distinction that their trust was reserved for “scientists” and not “politicians”. Almost all respondents, regardless of sample, believed governments have responsibility for the communication of modelling to the public.
These results provide an important reminder of the potentially skewed conclusions that could be drawn from non-representative samples.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, a partnership between PHE, University of Oxford, University of Liverpool and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine [grant number NIHR200907 supporting RM and CAD]; and the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis [grant number MR/R015600/1 supporting CAD], which is jointly funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), under the MRC/FCDO Concordat agreement and is also part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (EU). Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the United Kingdom (UK) Department of Health and Social Care, EU, FCDO, MRC, National Health Service, NIHR, or PHE. The funding bodies had no role in the design of the study, analysis and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study has approval from the Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oxford with Ethics Approval Reference R76166/RE001.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data and code availability
In line with the ethics approval obtained, only RM and CAD have access to the raw research data. However, anonymised summary data are provided in Table 1. Code for R analyses are provided at https://github.com/ruthmccabe/public-survey-modelling.
