Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

García-Garzón, Eduardo; Angulo-Brunet, Ariadna; Lecuona, Óscar; Barrada, Juan Ramón; Corradi, Guido

doi:10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 39 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first and second aims are more broadly relevant across scientific research. The latter point is especially critical given substantial concerns raised about public trust in science directly related to COVID-19 [43][44][45][46][47][48] . The third point is also used as a framing for assessing policy recommendations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating expectations from social and behavioral science about COVID-19 and lessons for the next pandemic

Ruggeri¹,

Stock²,

Haslam³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social and behavioral science research proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting the substantial increase in influence of behavioral science in public health and public policy more broadly. This review presents a comprehensive assessment of 742 scientific articles on human behavior during COVID-19. Two independent teams evaluated 19 substantive policy recommendations (“claims”) on potentially critical aspects of behaviors during the pandemic drawn from the most widely cited behavioral science papers on COVID-19. Teams were made up of original authors and an independent team, all of whom were blinded to other team member reviews throughout. Both teams found evidence in support of 16 of the claims; for two claims, teams found only null evidence; and for no claims did the teams find evidence of effects in the opposite direction. One claim had no evidence available to assess. Seemingly due to the risks of the pandemic, most studies were limited to surveys, highlighting a need for more investment in field research and behavioral validation studies. The strongest findings indicate interventions that combat misinformation and polarization, and to utilize effective forms of messaging that engage trusted leaders and emphasize positive social norms.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating expectations from social and behavioral science about COVID-19 and lessons for the next pandemic

Ruggeri¹,

Stock²,

Haslam³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Ruggeri,

Stock,

Haslam

et al. 2023

Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract