Examining Australian’s beliefs, misconceptions, and sources of information for COVID-19: A national online survey

Introduction

So far, Australia has done well in its response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, commonly called COVID-19, but not because of vaccines or drug treatments. The success is due to the use of non-drug interventions, such as physical distancing, hand hygiene, and quarantining [1]. Maintaining the suppression of major outbreaks are critical but it is predicated on garnering public cooperation to continue to conduct appropriate public health behaviours. Misinformation about prevention, transmission, and treatment of COVID-19 has the potential to derail these efforts.

To correct misinformation, we must first identify what individuals believe, which beliefs are accurate and inaccurate, and the reasons for inaccurate beliefs. Understanding the reasoning behind inaccurate beliefs and exploring typical sources of information can facilitate behaviour change interventions designed to support risk reduction efforts [2-4]. Several surveys have explored people’s perceptions, knowledge and attitudes of COVID-19. International and Australian-focused online surveys suggest 71% −93% of participants [5,6] could identify preventive behaviours (e.g., hand hygiene, physical distancing), but the proportion of individuals who self-report practicing these behaviours were fewer, ranging from a low of 45% in a survey of UK participants [7] to 85% in an Australian sample [8]. The difference between the high proportion of people knowing appropriate prevention behaviours and the lower proportion of those reporting to practice the behaviour, suggests that knowledge alone is insufficient to change behaviour. This constitutes a knowledge-practice gap. Varying demographic differences have been reported to predict practicing preventive behaviours including low socio-economic status [7], low health literacy [5], anxiety [5,8], and those with high compared with low engagement and perceptions of risk [8,9].

To achieve high compliance with infectious disease prevention measures relevant to the current COVID-19 pandemic and future infectious outbreaks, we need to understand the reasoning behind why some people do not practice effective prevention behaviours [2]. Therefore, we aimed to investigate beliefs about COVID-19 that have the potential to impact the uptake of the appropriate prevention behaviours (particularly the public health messages from the Australian Government), why some participants hold incorrect beliefs, and the most commonly used sources for acquiring COVID-19 related information.

Methods

Results

Of the 1802 potential participants contacted, 289 were excluded, 13 declined, and 1500 participated in the survey (response rate 83%; see Supplementary Figure 1 for participant flow chart). As per the sampling frame, 50% of survey participants were female, there was a representation across adult age groups and a proportional representation from each Australian state and territory. Participant characteristics are reported in Table 1.

Identifying prevention strategies

A high proportion of the sample gave correct responses for hand hygiene and 1.5m physical distancing, but significant proportions were incorrect for the effectiveness of antibiotics, colloidal silver, wearing gloves or masks, and staying away from health centres. Figure 2 shows proportions of participant perceptions of preventive behaviours and Table 2 reports the results of the content analyses for the ‘incorrect’ responses.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 2. Content analyses of misconceptions of possible preventive behaviours

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Participant perceptions of possible preventive behaviours

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Participant perceptions of their likelihood to contract COVID-19

Though most participants correctly identified “washing your hands regularly with soap and water” (92%), 7% were undecided (“neither agree or disagree” or “I don’t know”) and a minority (2%) thought that washing their hands would NOT prevent COVID-19. Reasons varied, but the most frequent theme (37.5%) was that participants thought handwashing was unnecessary or ineffective (e.g., it was an “overreaction”, it wouldn’t ‘kill’ the virus, or it is redundant because the participant didn’t leave the house; see Table 2).

Similarly, 90% of participants correctly identified that “staying at least 1.5m away from others” could prevent COVID-19. Only 34 (2%) participants thought that physical distancing would NOT prevent COVID-19 transmission. Half of those who held that belief reasoned that the strategy was ineffective or unnecessary (e.g., “stays in the air” and “can float a lot further than that”; see Table 2).

Fewer participants correctly identified that “regular use of antibiotics” (66%) would NOT prevent COVID-19, and 22% were unsure. For those who thought that antibiotics could prevent COVID-19 (11%), two dominant themes emerged: an incorrect understanding of antibiotics and treatment options for COVID-19 (e.g., they could “block viruses”, and “prevent” or “kill” the virus) and erroneously thinking antibiotics would strengthen their immunity.

While 56% of participants correctly identified that taking “products like colloidal silver or essential oils” would NOT prevent a person from contracting COVID-19 and 32% were unsure, and the remainder thought those products would help to prevent COVID-19. Approximately 32% of those who thought colloidal silver and essential oils would prevent COVID-19 appeared to incorrectly understand the transmission process and prevention strategies for COVID-19. For example, participants reasoned these products would help because they were “good in disinfecting”, suggesting transmission only by touch and “evidence that colloidal silver is a virus killer” and the products would “kill the germs”.

The two contentious preventative measures of wearing gloves or wearing surgical masks when outside of the home, showed conflicting beliefs about the benefits of these behaviours to prevent COVID-19. Over 40% of participants considered wearing gloves outside of the home would help prevent them contracting COVID-19. Their reasons were nuanced. In the randomly coded sample of 50% (n=299), 33% of participants incorrectly understood the transmission of COVID-19 (e.g., “won’t come into contact with the virus”, “stop transmission”). However, 23% identified plausible self-protection reasons (e.g., “would not be touching surfaces where it might be on and then touching my face and rubbing my eyes with bare hands”, “reduces risk of uptake of pathogen from hands, which in turn reduces risk of transmission from hands to eyes, nose, mouth, etc”).

For “wearing of face masks outside of the home”, 28% of participants agreed that this would NOT prevent them (the wearer) from contracting COVID-19, while 42% of participants thought this behaviour was preventative, and the remainder unsure. Within the randomly coded sample, the most frequently provided reason for wearing surgical masks (33%) was an incorrect understanding of COVID-19 transmission (e.g., “because the virus cannot move via a surgical mask”, “you can’t catch it”). Yet, almost a quarter (23%) identified plausible reasons for wearing masks (“may prevent inhaling droplets from the air which may contain the COVID-19 virus”, “it is some form of barrier to my respiratory system”).

Most participants agreed (58%) or were unsure (28%) that staying away from hospitals and health centres would prevent COVID-19 transmissions. Of the randomly coded responses, 52% articulated concerns of infection from test-positive COVID-19 patients and staff, while 13% had reasoned that hospitals and health centres should be avoided in general (e.g., “hospitals are hotbeds of disease”).

Discussion

We aimed to identify common beliefs, and describe reasons for inaccurate beliefs, about COVID-19. We specifically focused on beliefs or behaviours that have the potential to inhibit the uptake of the Australian public health recommendations for COVID-19 and those that might hamper the uptake of effective preventive behaviours in the future.

The widespread ability to identify the preventative measures of hand hygiene and physical distancing suggests that public health messaging has been effective in communicating prevention strategies to Australians. Only a minority of participants thought these behaviours were unnecessary or ineffective. Additionally, almost all participants correctly identified key public health messaging of common symptoms of fever, fatigue and cough and potential transmission practices such as sneezing and coughing and touching contaminated surfaces. This prevention awareness is supported by several other surveys with between 71% and 93% [5,6,8] of participants endorsing correct responses or reporting practicing the behaviour.

However, when we examined preventative behaviours not explicitly communicated by public health authorities, the results are more varied. While two-thirds of participants correctly identified that taking antibiotics would not prevent COVID-19, the remaining third thought taking them would prevent COVID-19 or were unsure. When asked for reasons for this misconception, it emerged that most who endorsed antibiotics had poor understanding of how they worked and their effects on viruses and the immune system broadly. Of concern, this result is similar to another Australian study that reported 35% of participants also thought antibiotics would be effective to prevent or treat COVID-19 [8]. Inappropriate use of antibiotics is considered the leading cause of antibiotic resistance [10,11]. The perception that antibiotics could prevent or treat COVID-19 has the potential to derail ongoing efforts to curb antibiotic use in the community [12]. Further, only half of participants correctly identified that products like colloidal silver or essential oils are not effective preventing transmission of COVID-19. Taken together, it appears many Australians have misconceptions about the effectiveness of pharmaceutical and complementary medicine’s roles in preventing COVID-19. If people believe these approaches will stop them from contracting the virus, there is legitimate concern they will not practice non-drug interventions such as hand hygiene and physical distancing either now or in the future.

Equally concerning was our finding that at the time of the survey (early May) only 15% of participants were confident that visiting hospitals and health centres were safe. Australian data from the Medical Benefits Scheme [13] appears to reflect this uncertainty with a 23% drop in face-to-face primary care attendance compared to the average of the same month in the past 5 years. A sharp decline in presentations to Emergency Departments for reasons other than COVID-19 (e.g., stroke, cardiac events etc) has also occurred internationally [14,15]. Conversely, the increase in telemedicine (e.g., video and phone consultations) in Australia [13] may suggest that although people are physically staying away from physically attending health services, they are still receiving health care through other means. These findings suggest that the emergence of COVID-19 has resulted in significant changes in how healthcare is utilised. The impact of these changes in term of accessing preventative healthcare services, patient’s health outcomes and healthcare costs are yet to be determined [16].

Two preventative behaviours that were associated with a high degree of uncertainty were wearing gloves and wearing a mask outside of the home. Approximately 40% of participants believed wearing gloves or a mask would prevent transmission of COVID-19, similar to Seale et al’s findings [8] that 50% of surveyed Australians thought their use could prevent COVID-19. This uncertainty surrounding wearing a mask is likely a reflection of the mixed messages that are evident in the media and various public health campaigns used in both Australia and internationally. These inconsistent and unclear messages may have contributed to the misconceptions about the effectiveness of masks and how they can reduce the transmission of COVID-19. There has been no public health messages in Australia suggesting wearing gloves is an effective preventive behaviour. In both cases, many participants did not fully understand how transmission of COVID-19 occurred. With many thinking that either masks or gloves would be sufficient to stop the spread. This is the primary concern of public health authorities; that should people wear masks, they may not practice more effective preventive behaviours such as hand hygiene and physical distancing because they believe masks and gloves are enough to protect them from COVID-19. However, some recognised the additional benefit that masks might provide.

Overall, our findings are concordant to those of a recent online survey of over 4000 Australians which also found gaps in understanding. This study found that those with inadequate health literacy and who spoke a language other than english were less able to identify behaviours to prevent infection and experienced more difficulty finding information and understanding public health messaging about COVID-19 [5]. In McCaffery et al [5], there were also higher endorsements of misinformation including negative views of vaccines amongst the same groups. Given that these views have broader public health implications (decreased vaccine uptake, increased antibiotic resistance), it is critical that we target future messaging to disadvantaged populations such as those with low health literacy and those who are culturally and linguistically diverse to ensure that health consumers are better equipped to make informed decisions with regards to their health care.

Strengths and limitations

In our sample, 70% of participants were born in Australia. Although this reflects Australian population demographics, results from this survey may not translate to individuals where English is not their primary language. We did not assess cultural and linguistic diversity which limits the generalisability of our findings to this group. McCaffery et al [5] identified that participants whose primary language was not English had poorer understanding of COVID-19 symptoms, were less able to identify behaviours that reduced infection risk, and experienced more difficulty understanding Government messaging. Public health messaging not only should ensure translation of messages but also understand the cultural differences that may interfere with practicing preventive behaviours. Unlike other Australian surveys [5,8], our survey looked beyond quantifying knowledge and attitudes to include qualitative content analyses to identify specific reasons for participants’ misconceptions.

Our sample was balanced for gender and stratified for age. We also had proportionally representative quotas from each Australian State and Territory. Despite these efforts, we acknowledge that survey research (with panel providers) has certain biases such as selection and sampling bias, and therefore suggest care when interpreting any results.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that although clear public messaging about the two, key evidence-based prevention behaviours (hand hygiene and physical distancing) are broadly understood, there are still important knowledge gaps around how the disease is prevented, transmitted and its symptoms. Public health messages will need to combat the misconceptions that antibiotics and complementary medicines are effective in prevention and/or treating COVID-19. These beliefs have the potential to impede individuals from practicing appropriate and effective behaviours. In the absence of a vaccine or effective drug treatments our only prevention strategies are non-drug interventions, especially physical distancing and hand hygiene [1]. How do we maintain these behaviours in the long term and how do we initiate other behaviours yet to be seen as critical such as wearing masks, testing when symptomatic, self-isolating, and downloading contact tracing apps? By understanding some of the misconceptions identified in our survey and using the principles of public communication and knowledge translation, we can develop intervention strategies for the longer term.

Supplementary file

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Supplementary Figure 1. Participant flow chart