Does the public know when a scientific controversy is over? Public perceptions of hydroxychloroquine in France between April 2020 and June 2021

Abstract

Objectives In the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, chloroquine and its derivatives such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were widely commented upon both within the scientific community and in the media. This paper explores the different factors that influenced public perceptions in France of the efficacy of HCQ as well as their evolution between April 2020 and June 2021. Methods This article draws on 5 surveys conducted among representative samples of the French population (projects COCONEL and TRACTRUST; quota method, n = 1006; 1004; 2006; 1014 and 1005). We asked questions on the effectiveness of chloroquine against COVID-19. We also collected sociodemographic variables and attitudes toward politics and science. Results Between April and June 2021, the proportion of respondents who believed in the efficacy of HCQ decreased rapidly from 35% to 14%. The proportion of respondents who believed that HCQ is ineffective rose gradually from 6% to 21%. After adjusting for the temporal effect, the logistic regression showed a very strong association between political orientation and the belief in the efficacy of HCQ. Respondents who felt closest to the more radical parties (far-right and far-left) were more likely to believe in the efficacy of HCQ than those who felt closest to the political center (O.R. 2.48 [1.95–3.15] and 1.87 [1.44–2.43]). The role of trust in the government and in science and of the degree of political engagement were investigated in the two waves conducted after the scientific consensus was established during the summer of 2020. High levels of trust in the government and in science and of politicization are associated with belief of HCQ proven inefficacy. Across the whole period, a majority of respondents were uncertain. Even in 2021, 41.5% stated that the data were insufficient to decide whether or not HCQ is effective and 25.2% stating that they did not know. Conclusion Because media coverage of scientific controversies is higher in times of uncertainty than after these controversies have died down, the publicization of therapeutic promises can have lasting consequences on attitudes towards science and medicine.

Information overload in the context of COVID-19 pandemic: A repeated cross-sectional study

“…As expected, with an enormous amount of often changing and not always valid [30] COVID-19-related information being broadcast across all media channels during the study period and specific controversies over treatments (e.g., efficacy of chloroquine [31] ), CovIO was higher than CIO and increased over time in our study (when adjusting for CoVID-19 related variables such as personal infection and preoccupation). While CIO was higher in this sample compared to our previous study in 2016 [10] , it was stable across the two survey waves and this difference may reflect the fact that our previous study recruited a convenience sample of people specifically interested in cancer research and that participants not affected by cancer were found to have higher CIO than cancer patients or caregivers [10] .…”

The French Covid-19 vaccination policy did not solve vaccination inequities: a nationwide study on 64.5 million people

“…19 Finally, in and around the Marseille metropolis, the image of a rebellious territory was reinforced since the first months of the epidemic in France through the hypermediatized Pr Didier Raoult. Based in Marseille, he was a promoter of a controversial treatment against Covid-19 based on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, 20 and later held ambiguous positions regarding Covid-19 vaccination.…”

The French Covid-19 vaccination policy did not solve vaccination inequities: a nationwide longitudinal study on 64.5 million individuals

“…Finally, in and around the Marseille metropolis, the image of a rebellious territory was reinforced since the first months of the epidemic in France through the hypermediatized Pr Didier Raoult. Based in Marseille, he was a promoter of a controversial treatment against Covid-19 based on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (Schultz et al 2022), and later held ambiguous positions regarding Covid-19 vaccination. He has become a local icon, thanks to his anti-system positions, and against the hostility of most of the medical world towards his work.…”