Public Perceptions and Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Across Six Countries: A Topic Modeling Analysis of Twitter Data

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) (such as wearing masks and social distancing) have been implemented by governments around the world to slow the spread of COVID-19. To promote public adherence to these regimes, governments need to understand the public perceptions and attitudes toward NPI regimes and the factors that influence them. Twitter data offer a means to capture these insights.

Objective

The objective of this study is to identify tweets about COVID-19 NPIs in six countries and compare the trends in public perceptions and attitudes toward NPIs across these countries. The aim is to identify factors that influenced public perceptions and attitudes about NPI regimes during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We analyzed 777,869 English language tweets about COVID-19 NPIs in six countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The relationship between tweet frequencies and case numbers was assessed using a Pearson correlation analysis. Topic modeling was used to isolate tweets about NPIs. A comparative analysis of NPIs between countries was conducted.

Results

The proportion of NPI-related topics, relative to all topics, varied between countries. The New Zealand data set displayed the greatest attention to NPIs, and the US data set showed the lowest. The relationship between tweet frequencies and case numbers was statistically significant only for Australia ( r=0.837, P<.001) and New Zealand ( r=0.747, P<.001). Topic modeling produced 131 topics related to one of 22 NPIs, grouped into seven NPI categories: Personal Protection (n=15), Social Distancing (n=9), Testing and Tracing (n=10), Gathering Restrictions (n=18), Lockdown (n=42), Travel Restrictions (n=14), and Workplace Closures (n=23). While less restrictive NPIs gained widespread support, more restrictive NPIs were perceived differently across countries. Four characteristics of these regimes were seen to influence public adherence to NPIs: timeliness of implementation, NPI campaign strategies, inconsistent information, and enforcement strategies.

Conclusions

Twitter offers a means to obtain timely feedback about the public response to COVID-19 NPI regimes. Insights gained from this analysis can support government decision making, implementation, and communication strategies about NPI regimes, as well as encourage further discussion about the management of NPI programs for global health events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Related collections

Most cited references 33

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

The Socio-Economic Implications of the Coronavirus and COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review

Maria R.C. Nicola, Zaid Alsafi, Catrin Sohrabi … (2020)

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in over 1.4 million confirmed cases and over 83,000 deaths globally. It has also sparked fears of an impending economic crisis and recession. Social distancing, self-isolation and travel restrictions forced a decrease in the workforce across all economic sectors and caused many jobs to be lost. Schools have closed down, and the need of commodities and manufactured products has decreased. In contrast, the need for medical supplies has significantly increased. The food sector has also seen a great demand due to panic-buying and stockpiling of food products. In response to this global outbreak, we summarise the socio-economic effects of COVID-19 on individual aspects of the world economy.

0 comments Cited 2035 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The effect of control strategies to reduce social mixing on outcomes of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: a modelling study

Kiesha Prem, Yang Liu, Timothy Russell … (2020)

Summary Background In December, 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel coronavirus, emerged in Wuhan, China. Since then, the city of Wuhan has taken unprecedented measures in response to the outbreak, including extended school and workplace closures. We aimed to estimate the effects of physical distancing measures on the progression of the COVID-19 epidemic, hoping to provide some insights for the rest of the world. Methods To examine how changes in population mixing have affected outbreak progression in Wuhan, we used synthetic location-specific contact patterns in Wuhan and adapted these in the presence of school closures, extended workplace closures, and a reduction in mixing in the general community. Using these matrices and the latest estimates of the epidemiological parameters of the Wuhan outbreak, we simulated the ongoing trajectory of an outbreak in Wuhan using an age-structured susceptible-exposed-infected-removed (SEIR) model for several physical distancing measures. We fitted the latest estimates of epidemic parameters from a transmission model to data on local and internationally exported cases from Wuhan in an age-structured epidemic framework and investigated the age distribution of cases. We also simulated lifting of the control measures by allowing people to return to work in a phased-in way and looked at the effects of returning to work at different stages of the underlying outbreak (at the beginning of March or April). Findings Our projections show that physical distancing measures were most effective if the staggered return to work was at the beginning of April; this reduced the median number of infections by more than 92% (IQR 66–97) and 24% (13–90) in mid-2020 and end-2020, respectively. There are benefits to sustaining these measures until April in terms of delaying and reducing the height of the peak, median epidemic size at end-2020, and affording health-care systems more time to expand and respond. However, the modelled effects of physical distancing measures vary by the duration of infectiousness and the role school children have in the epidemic. Interpretation Restrictions on activities in Wuhan, if maintained until April, would probably help to delay the epidemic peak. Our projections suggest that premature and sudden lifting of interventions could lead to an earlier secondary peak, which could be flattened by relaxing the interventions gradually. However, there are limitations to our analysis, including large uncertainties around estimates of R 0 and the duration of infectiousness. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, Wellcome Trust, and Health Data Research UK.

0 comments Cited 854 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

An investigation of transmission control measures during the first 50 days of the COVID-19 epidemic in China

Huaiyu Tian, Yonghong Liu, Yidan Li … (2020)

Responding to an outbreak of a novel coronavirus (agent of COVID-19) in December 2019, China banned travel to and from Wuhan city on 23 January and implemented a national emergency response. We investigated the spread and control of COVID-19 using a unique data set including case reports, human movement and public health interventions. The Wuhan shutdown was associated with the delayed arrival of COVID-19 in other cities by 2.91 days (95%CI: 2.54-3.29). Cities that implemented control measures pre-emptively reported fewer cases, on average, in the first week of their outbreaks (13.0; 7.1-18.8) compared with cities that started control later (20.6; 14.5-26.8). Suspending intra-city public transport, closing entertainment venues and banning public gatherings were associated with reductions in case incidence. The national emergency response appears to have delayed the growth and limited the size of the COVID-19 epidemic in China, averting hundreds of thousands of cases by 19 February (day 50).

0 comments Cited 838 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Caitlin Doogan:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5654-2680

Department of Data Science and AIFaculty of Information TechnologyMonash UniversityWellington RdClayton, 3800Australia61 3 9903 1004caitlin.doogan@monash.edu

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Med Internet Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J. Med. Internet Res

Journal ID (publisher-id): JMIR

Title: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Print): 1439-4456

ISSN (Electronic): 1438-8871

Publication date Collection: September 2020

Publication date (Electronic): 3 September 2020

Publication date PMC-release: 3 September 2020

Volume: 22

Issue: 9

Electronic Location Identifier: e21419

Affiliations

[1 ] Department of Human Centred Computing Faculty of Information Technology Monash University Caulfield Australia

[2 ] Department of Data Science and AI Faculty of Information Technology Monash University Clayton Australia

[3 ] Royal Perth Hospital Perth Australia

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Caitlin Doogan caitlin.doogan@ 123456monash.edu

Author information

Caitlin Doogan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5654-2680

Wray Buntine https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9292-1015

Henry Linger https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0400-1786

Samantha Brunt https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1794-8511

Article

Publisher ID: v22i9e21419

DOI: 10.2196/21419

PMC ID: 7505256

PubMed ID: 32784190

SO-VID: ea3b4826-9413-4193-8ebf-b0a4153a23a0

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 14 June 2020

Date revision requested : 7 July 2020

Date revision received : 5 August 2020

Date accepted : 6 August 2020

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 49

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 810

See all reference authors

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access