Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic
Abstract With recurring waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, a dilemma facing public health leadership is whether to provide public advice that is medically optimal (e.g., most protective against infection if followed), but unlikely to be adhered to, or advice that is less protective but is more likely t...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2021-11-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01186-6 |
| _version_ | 1818407569606049792 |
|---|---|
| author | Oded Nov Graham Dove Martina Balestra Katharine Lawrence Devin Mann Batia Wiesenfeld |
| author_facet | Oded Nov Graham Dove Martina Balestra Katharine Lawrence Devin Mann Batia Wiesenfeld |
| author_sort | Oded Nov |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract With recurring waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, a dilemma facing public health leadership is whether to provide public advice that is medically optimal (e.g., most protective against infection if followed), but unlikely to be adhered to, or advice that is less protective but is more likely to be followed. To provide insight about this dilemma, we examined and quantified public perceptions about the tradeoff between (a) the stand-alone value of health behavior advice, and (b) the advice’s adherence likelihood. In a series of studies about preference for public health leadership advice, we asked 1061 participants to choose between (5) strict advice that is medically optimal if adhered to but which is less likely to be broadly followed, and (2) relaxed advice, which is less medically effective but more likely to gain adherence—given varying infection expectancies. Participants’ preference was consistent with risk aversion. Offering an informed choice alternative that shifts volition to advice recipients only strengthened risk aversion, but also demonstrated that informed choice was preferred as much or more than the risk-averse strict advice. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T09:29:55Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8beb4befa7c149fe818769588f746ccf |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T09:29:55Z |
| publishDate | 2021-11-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-8beb4befa7c149fe818769588f746ccf2022-12-21T23:08:06ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222021-11-011111710.1038/s41598-021-01186-6Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemicOded Nov0Graham Dove1Martina Balestra2Katharine Lawrence3Devin Mann4Batia Wiesenfeld5Tandon School of Engineering, New York UniversityTandon School of Engineering, New York UniversityTandon School of Engineering, New York UniversityGrossman School of Medicine, New York UniversityGrossman School of Medicine, New York UniversityStern School of Business, New York UniversityAbstract With recurring waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, a dilemma facing public health leadership is whether to provide public advice that is medically optimal (e.g., most protective against infection if followed), but unlikely to be adhered to, or advice that is less protective but is more likely to be followed. To provide insight about this dilemma, we examined and quantified public perceptions about the tradeoff between (a) the stand-alone value of health behavior advice, and (b) the advice’s adherence likelihood. In a series of studies about preference for public health leadership advice, we asked 1061 participants to choose between (5) strict advice that is medically optimal if adhered to but which is less likely to be broadly followed, and (2) relaxed advice, which is less medically effective but more likely to gain adherence—given varying infection expectancies. Participants’ preference was consistent with risk aversion. Offering an informed choice alternative that shifts volition to advice recipients only strengthened risk aversion, but also demonstrated that informed choice was preferred as much or more than the risk-averse strict advice.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01186-6 |
| spellingShingle | Oded Nov Graham Dove Martina Balestra Katharine Lawrence Devin Mann Batia Wiesenfeld Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic Scientific Reports |
| title | Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| title_full | Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| title_fullStr | Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| title_full_unstemmed | Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| title_short | Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic |
| title_sort | preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the covid 19 pandemic |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01186-6 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT odednov preferencesandpatternsofresponsetopublichealthadviceduringthecovid19pandemic AT grahamdove preferencesandpatternsofresponsetopublichealthadviceduringthecovid19pandemic AT martinabalestra preferencesandpatternsofresponsetopublichealthadviceduringthecovid19pandemic AT katharinelawrence preferencesandpatternsofresponsetopublichealthadviceduringthecovid19pandemic AT devinmann preferencesandpatternsofresponsetopublichealthadviceduringthecovid19pandemic AT batiawiesenfeld preferencesandpatternsofresponsetopublichealthadviceduringthecovid19pandemic |