Disparities in COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours by health literacy

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus pandemic represents the biggest public health challenge Australia and the world have faced in living memory. Because COVID-19 spreads so rapidly, the pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on health systems globally. People at greater risk of a severe response to COVID-19 include those aged over 60 years, in aged care facilities, with compromised immune systems (e.g. cancer) and those with chronic medical conditions (1). Although data is still emerging, it suggests that people with chronic disease and multimorbidity are particularly susceptible (2). There are well known social inequalities in chronic disease with higher rates in more disadvantaged populations. Perhaps predictably, evidence of large disparities in COVID-19 deaths by ethnicity and socioeconomic groups has emerged in the US and UK (2, 3).

Currently there are no proven antiviral treatments and no vaccine. This means that to control the spread of COVID-19 we are largely reliant on individual behaviour to comply with restrictions and follow recommended advice on behaviours such as physical distancing, voluntary testing, self-isolation, and hand hygiene. Lockdown measures can enforce some of these behaviours, for example, by restricting travel, requiring returning travellers to self-isolate, closure of public recreational spaces, dramatically limiting individual contacts, and an extensive shift to attend work or school remotely. These combined efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 have had notable success in Australia. However, different levels of engagement with these lockdown measures within our community may lead to hotspots or even a second wave, and certain groups may be more severely affected by COVID-19.

Since an effective response to the virus requires individuals to modify their behaviour, their engagement with public health information is a pivotal element. This has meant being able to process and understand rapidly evolving public health messages, and then actioning them. It is well known that people vary in their ability to understand, access and action health advice and make informed health decisions –a set of skills commonly called “health literacy”(4). Health literacy has emerged as one of the strongest psychosocial determinants of health outcomes and explains a range of health inequalities by age, ethnicity and socioeconomic position (5). Concern about the quality and appropriateness of communication for people with lower health literacy, and for other vulnerable population subgroups early on in the lockdown campaign, has been expressed (6). This was alongside widespread concern about inconsistent messaging (e.g. on sending children to school) and lack of clarity over key preventive behavioural advice (physical distancing).

We set out to explore the understanding, uptake and impact of COVID-19 health advice during the 2020 pandemic lockdown among a diverse national sample. Our aim was to understand if vulnerable populations might be further disadvantaged in their understanding and attitudes regarding COVID-19 prevention measures. We examined variation in knowledge, attitudes, behaviours and psychosocial outcomes by health literacy and key sociodemographic factors.

METHODS

RESULTS

We had a total of 4,362 respondents. Sample characteristics are summarised in Table 1. The mean age was 42.6 years (SD 17.4; range: 18–90 years) with 60% female respondents. Most participants (75%) were born in Australia, with 94% speaking English as their primary language at home, 35% had no tertiary qualifications and 36% did not have private health insurance. The presence of at least one chronic health condition was reported by 48% of the sample. Inadequate health literacy (assessed by the SILS) was reported by 13% of the sample.

DISCUSSION

Our findings show important disparities in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours related to COVID-19 that have the potential to undermine efforts to reduce viral transmission and may lead to social inequalities in health outcomes in Australia. People with lower health literacy had poorer understanding of COVID-19 symptoms, were less able to identify behaviours to prevent infection, and experienced more difficulty finding information and understanding government messaging about COVID-19. They were less likely to rate social distancing as important and reported more difficulty remembering and accessing medication since lockdown. They felt less prepared and more anxious about COVID-19, reported experiencing greater financial toxicity but also perceived they were less likely to get sick from COVID-19. Similar patterns were observed among those who primarily spoke a LOTE at home. Notably, there was markedly higher endorsement of misinformation beliefs in people with lower health literacy and LOTE background, which is a concern as these items relate to ongoing efforts to prevent viral transmission and trust in vaccination –the major hope for mitigating COVID-19 worldwide.

The findings support our earlier concerns about the low level of attention paid to health literacy in COVID-19 public health messaging (6). In our preliminary analysis of health information presented on government websites we found readability scores to be higher than the level suitable for the average Australian (reading Grade 8), and far higher than the grade required for low literacy communities (Grade 5) including those with English as a second language. The findings echo results reported in the US (Chicago) sister survey conducted in March (7). Here, even larger social disparities in key knowledge, attitude and prevention behaviours were reported. Although Australia is in a much more favourable position in relation to COVID-19 than the US for many reasons, the need for ongoing attention to social variation in community uptake of public health messages remains. Until an effective vaccine is available, our primary defence against the spread of COVID-19 is behaviour change. Effective behaviour change relies on diverse communities and patient groups being able to understand, trust and act on evolving health advice. Our comprehensive survey of over 4000 Australians suggests there are important knowledge and attitude gaps which may threaten efforts to reduce viral transmission in Australia.

A systematic review of communication during the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic in 118 studies (17) reported a consistent association between social inequalities in communication and emergency preparedness outcomes. Trust in sources of information, worry and levels of knowledge about the disease, and routine media exposure as well as information-seeking behaviours, were related to greater likelihood of adoption of recommended viral infection prevention behaviours. The review suggests that when inequalities are addressed in communication the effectiveness of the pandemic response can be increased.

Limitations of study

The recruited sample is large and diverse but is not statistically representative of the Australian population. The proportion of Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds was small and we had very few Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants in our sample (2%), although this similar to the national estimate of 3.5%. Future surveys need to target these groups as we were unable to do so with limited time and funds for this project. Our sample of adults with low health literacy is similar to other studies we have conducted (∼15%)(18). The single item measure of health literacy used for assessment is simple and non-stigmatising to administer, however it under-reports problems with health literacy, identifying only those with very low health literacy levels (19). It was correlated with our additional related measure of numeracy, ehealth literacy and graphical literacy (all P values < 0.001). Future studies should use more comprehensive literacy measures to understand the associations with key knowledge, attitude and behaviour outcomes related to COVID-19.

Conclusion

COVID-19 presents a disproportionate burden to people with chronic disease, who are also more likely to have poorer health literacy and speak a language other than English at home. Health messages must be tailored to meet the needs of these groups as our study shows important disparities in understanding, beliefs and behaviours that may put already vulnerable people at greater risk. Those with the greatest burden of chronic disease are most disadvantaged, and most likely to experience severe disease and die from COVID-19. It is imperative that health advice reaches them in a way they understand and can implement. Addressing the health literacy needs of the community in public health messaging about COVID-19 must now be a priority in Australia.