IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0231808.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of the adult US population regarding the novel coronavirus outbreak

Author

Listed:
  • SarahAnn M McFadden
  • Amyn A Malik
  • Obianuju G Aguolu
  • Kathryn S Willebrand
  • Saad B Omer

Abstract

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is spreading globally. Although COVID-19 has now been declared a pandemic and risk for infection in the United States (US) is currently high, at the time of survey administration the risk of infection in the US was low. It is important to understand the public perception of risk and trust in sources of information to better inform public health messaging. In this study, we surveyed the adult US population to understand their risk perceptions about the COVID-19 outbreak. We used an online platform to survey 718 adults in the US in early February 2020 using a questionnaire that we developed. Our sample was fairly similar to the general adult US population in terms of age, gender, race, ethnicity and education. We found that 69% of the respondents wanted the scientific/public health leadership (either the CDC Director or NIH Director) to lead the US response to COVID-19 outbreak as compared to 14% who wanted the political leadership (either the president or Congress) to lead the response. Risk perception was low (median score of 5 out of 10) with the respondents trusting health professionals and health officials for information on COVID-19. The majority of respondents were in favor of strict infection prevention policies to control the outbreak. Given our results, the public health/scientific leadership should be at the forefront of the COVID-19 response to promote trust.

Suggested Citation

  • SarahAnn M McFadden & Amyn A Malik & Obianuju G Aguolu & Kathryn S Willebrand & Saad B Omer, 2020. "Perceptions of the adult US population regarding the novel coronavirus outbreak," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-6, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0231808
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231808
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231808&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0231808?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter M. Sandman & Paul M. Miller & Branden B. Johnson & Neil D. Weinstein, 1993. "Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 585-598, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    2. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    3. Anders A F Wahlberg & Lennart Sjoberg, 2000. "Risk perception and the media," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 31-50, January.
    4. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    5. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    6. Kenneth Lachlan & Patric R. Spence, 2010. "Communicating Risks: Examining Hazard and Outrage in Multiple Contexts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(12), pages 1872-1886, December.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(4), pages 325-354, October.
    8. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1347, October.
    9. Oeystein Kjoersvik & Andrew Bate, 2022. "Black Swan Events and Intelligent Automation for Routine Safety Surveillance," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 419-427, May.
    10. Paul Lindhout & Genserik Reniers, 2022. "The “Transparency for Safety” Triangle: Developing a Smart Transparency Framework to Achieve a Safety Learning Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-21, September.
    11. Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1257-1270, December.
    12. Miguel Ángel López-Navarro & Jaume Llorens-Monzonís & Vicente Tortosa-Edo, 2013. "The Effect of Social Trust on Citizens’ Health Risk Perception in the Context of a Petrochemical Industrial Complex," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Barbara Miller & Janas Sinclair, 2012. "Risk Perceptions in a Resource Community and Communication Implications: Emotion, Stigma, and Identity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 483-495, March.
    14. V.H.M. Visschers & P.M. Wiedemann & H. Gutscher & S. Kurzenhäuser & R. Seidl & C.G. Jardine & D.R.M. Timmermans, 2012. "Affect-inducing risk communication: current knowledge and future directions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 257-271, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0231808. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.