Suchergebnisse

Background: The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been mirrored by diffusion of misinformation and conspiracy theories about its origins (such as 5G cellular networks) and the motivations of preventive measures like vaccination, social distancing, and face masks (for example, as a political ploy). These beliefs have resulted in substantive, negative real-world outcomes but remain largely unstudied. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, online survey (n=660). Participants were asked about the believability of five selected COVID-19 narratives, their political orientation, their religious commitment, and their trust in science (a 21-item scale), along with sociodemographic items. Data were assessed descriptively, then latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups with similar believability profiles. Bivariate (ANOVA) analyses were run, then multivariable, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with membership in specific COVID-19 narrative believability profiles. Results: For the full sample, believability of the narratives varied, from a low of 1.94 (SD=1.72) for the 5G narrative to a high of 5.56 (SD=1.64) for the zoonotic (scientific consensus) narrative. Four distinct belief profiles emerged, with the preponderance (70%) of the sample falling into Profile 1, which believed the scientifically accepted narrative (zoonotic origin) but not the misinformed or conspiratorial narratives. Other profiles did not disbelieve the zoonotic explanation, but rather believed additional misinformation to varying degrees. Controlling for sociodemographics, political orientation and religious commitment were marginally, and typically non-significantly, associated with COVID-19 belief profile membership. However, trust in science was a strong, significant predictor of profile membership, with lower trust being substantively associated with belonging to Profiles 2 through 4. Conclusions: Belief in misinformation or conspiratorial narratives may not be mutually exclusive from belief in the narrative reflecting scientific consensus; that is, profiles were distinguished not by belief in the zoonotic narrative, but rather by concomitant belief or disbelief in additional narratives. Additional, renewed dissemination of scientifically accepted narratives may not attenuate belief in misinformation. However, prophylaxis of COVID-19 misinformation might be achieved by taking concrete steps to improve trust in science and scientists, such as building understanding of the scientific process and supporting open science initiatives.

ABSTRACTOnline participant recruitment ("crowdsourcing") platforms are increasingly being used for research studies. While such platforms can rapidly provide access to large samples, there are concomitant concerns around data quality. Researchers have studied and demonstrated means to reduce the prevalence of low‐quality data from crowdsourcing platforms, but approaches to doing so often involve rejecting work and/or denying payment to participants, which can pose ethical dilemmas. We write this essay as an associate professor and two institutional review board (IRB) directors to provide a perspective on the competing interests of participants/workers and researchers and to propose a checklist of steps that we believe may support workers' agency on the platform and lessen instances of unfair consequences to them while enabling researchers to definitively reject lower‐quality work that might otherwise reduce the likelihood of their studies producing true results. We encourage further, explicit discussion of these issues among academics and among IRBs.

Retrospective alcohol use data are prone to recall bias, a limitation that could be addressed with real-time ecological momentary assessment (EMA) tools. We aimed to (1) introduce a simple (single-click) EMA methodology for collecting real-time alcohol use data, and (2) investigate the EMA methodology's performance relative to established alcohol use data collection tools. In March–April 2021, we sampled undergraduate students ( n = 84) and collected a week of alcohol use data. Participants entered their real-time drinking start times using our EMA methodology, self-reported their drinking details in daily surveys, and a subsample recorded their breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) using smart breathalyzers. We estimated the accuracy of our EMA methodology in collecting alcohol use data relative to data collected by daily surveys and breathalyzers. Overall, 199 drinking events were recorded with the EMA methodology. Numbers of drinks recorded with the EMA methodology were correlated with self-reported daily surveys ( r = .82, p < .001) and BrAC readings ( r = .69, p < .001). Sensitivity and specificity of the EMA methodology in detecting heavy drinking relative to daily surveys were 82% (95% CI [67%, 92%]) and 97% (95% CI [85%, 100%]), respectively. These were 74% (95% CI: [64%, 83%]) and 92% (95% CI: [85%, 96%]) for binge drinking. Similar results were found when we used breathalyzers as the reference standard test. We developed an EMA methodology for collecting real-time alcohol use data (alcohol drinking start-time, frequency, magnitude, patterns, and pace). Our findings support the utility of our EMA methodology in collecting alcohol use data among college students.

BACKGROUND: Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) to laypersons are key approaches to reduce the incidence of opioid-involved overdoses. While some research has examined attitudes toward OEND, especially among pharmacists and first responders, our understanding of what laypersons believe about overdose and naloxone is surprisingly limited. Further, some scholars have expressed concerns about the prevalence of non-evidence-based beliefs about overdose and naloxone. We designed this study to analyze the prevalence, nature, and context of beliefs about naloxone and overdose among U.S. laypersons. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study (n = 702) using Prolific.co (representative of the U.S. population by age, gender, and race). Primary outcomes were the believability of six statements about overdose/naloxone on a seven-point Likert-type scale. Five statements were unsupported, and one was supported, by current scientific evidence. We used latent profile analysis to classify participants into belief groups, then used regression to study correlates of profile classification. RESULTS: Believability of the statements (7: extremely believable) ranged from m = 5.57 (SD = 1.38) for a scientifically supported idea (trained bystanders can reverse overdose with naloxone), to m = 3.33 (SD = 1.83) for a statement claiming opioid users can get high on naloxone. Participants were classified into three latent belief profiles: Profile 1 (most aligned with current evidence; n = 246), Profile 2 (moderately aligned; n = 351), and Profile 3 (least aligned, n = 105). Compared to Profile 1, several covariates were associated with categorization into Profiles 2 and 3, including lower trust in science (RRR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.24–0.54; RRR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.12–0.36, respectively), conservative political orientation (RRR = 1.41, 95%CI = 1.23–1.63; 3:RRR = 1.62, 95%CI = 1.35–1.95, respectively), and never being trained about naloxone (Profile 3: RRR = 3.37, 95%CI = 1.16–9.77). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests some ...

In the United States, African Americans continue to bear a disproportionate amount of risk from HIV and illicit drug use, highlighting the importance of culturally responsive prevention programming. Manualized HIV and substance use prevention curricula that are conceptually African centered are few, and evaluative data of such programs are sparse. This research brief aims to describe a field evaluation of the "Color it Real" (CIR) program, a 6-session, 12-hr HIV and substance use prevention curriculum for African American males and females aged 18 to 24 years. Participants ( n = 225) were recruited using convenience sampling from two cities within a high-risk county in Indiana. Attitudes, knowledge, and confidence related to HIV and substance use were assessed before and after the intervention. Wilcoxon and McNemar tests were used to compare pretest and posttest scores, and binary logistic regression models were used to examine sociodemographic associations with outcomes. Among the analytic sample ( n = 195), the CIR program was associated with several improved attitudes and increased knowledge related to HIV and substance use, but not with increased confidence in sexual negotiation skills. These findings represent the first published data from CIR since the developers' original study, and support continued use of the curriculum by our program. Given the positive findings (i.e., attitudes and knowledge) and community receptiveness to CIR, we believe that a randomized, controlled trial of the intervention that includes longitudinal behavioral measurement would be a meaningful addition to prevention research.

The goal of this article is to illustrate how a person-centered analytic approach can inform our understanding of alcohol use motivations in underage college students and to build off of a related analysis with legal-aged students. Data come from 2,346 students who were under 21 years old and reported using alcohol in the past year in the 2013 Indiana College Substance Use Survey. Latent class analysis identified four underage drinking motivation subgroups and examined associations between subgroup membership and alcohol-related behavior and consequences. The groups varied in their combination of alcohol motivations and their alcohol-related behaviors and consequences. Results for the present study confirm the variability in motivations for alcohol use and provide valuable information about the characteristics of those groups at highest risk, which can inform content and intensity of prevention efforts targeted at underage college students.