A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Abstract

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.

Friendship buffering effects on mental health symptoms before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a UK longitudinal study of young people with childhood adversity

“…Furthermore, the experience of social relationships changed during the COVID-19 pandemic with individuals turning to more remote methods of communication (Ofcom, 2020). From a policy perspective, it will be important to critically investigate the effectiveness of online tools, such as social media, to buffer against negative mental health effects in vulnerable young people (Orben et al, 2020;Ruggeri et al, 2023).…”

Behavioural interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation on social media

“…21 22 Despite unprecedented levels of vaccine access and nearly real time communication on the development and availability of vaccines in 2020-21, public health officials struggled to keep pace with misleading or inaccurate content online. 23 As guidelines shifted with the emergence of new information, policy decisions were often perceived by individuals and groups who are prone to distrust or refute government messaging as a response not to evidence but to mistakes or lack of expertise. 24 25 A 2021 randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that exposure to misinformation about covid-19 vaccines lowered the intent of recipients to vaccinate, even among those reporting before exposure that they would "definitely" accept vaccination.…”

Recent developments in Behavioural Public Policy: IBPPC 2022

“…The first three articles of this special issue relate to a notable theme that emerged during IBPPC 2022the application of BPP during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic underscored the significance of behavioural science and public policy for exploring effective strategies in public health (Ruggeri et al, 2024). Before vaccines were widely available, behaviour change interventions were among the only approaches to curb infection rates.…”