RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 An empirical analysis of lay media coverage on influenza prevention pre- and post-COVID 19: Mask recommendations were previously rare, now ubiquitous
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.02.14.23285818
DO 10.1101/2023.02.14.23285818
A1 Prasad, Vinay
A1 Brown, Elissa
A1 Haslam, Alyson
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/22/2023.02.14.23285818.abstract
AB Importance Consistent, evidence-based communication is critical to building trust and maintaining credibility of public health agencies.Objective To identify any significant changes in the mainstream media’s presentation of public health advice for flu prevention before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, Setting, and Participants A systematic search in Factiva of top ten U.S. newspapers by circulation, using two search periods, 2018-2019 and 2021-2022. Articles with flu prevention advice were identified, abstracted for media outlet, reporter, date. Articles were coded for the specific advice provided.Main Measure(s) Number of recommendations for flu prevention, frequency of each recommendation; percent of recommendations aligned with CDC guidelines for each period. Changes in frequency of each recommendation. Differences determined using 2-proportion Z-tests, p-value 0.05 significance.Results 128 articles with 244 recommendations for pre-COVID period; 122 articles with 296 recommendations post-COVID. 96.3% of recommendations in alignment with CDC guidelines pre-COVID. 63.9% of recommendations in alignment with CDC during post-COVID timeframe. Percentage of articles with advice to mask for flu increased by 1,494.8% (p=<0.00001). 14.5% decline in percentage of articles advising flu vaccine (p=0.002). 495.5% increase in percentage of articles recommending social distancing (p=0.001). 1,368.9% increase in percentage articles recommending increased ventilation (p=0.0004).Advice to cover cough/sneeze declined by 52.8% (p=0.041); advice to disinfect surfaces declined by 76.7% (p=0.038).Conclusions and Relevance Expert advice on flu prevention as presented in top 10 U.S. newspapers changed significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The strategies discussed more frequently are not currently recommended by CDC. This is relevant information for public health leaders as they address ongoing issues of trust and credibility.Question Are there significant differences between the mainstream media’s presentation of expert advice for flu prevention before and after the COVID-19 pandemic?Findings A systematic search of the top ten U.S. newspapers by circulation found that the percentage of total articles with advice to use a face mask for flu prevention increased by 1,494.8% from the pre-to post-COVID period, while the percentage of total articles advising a flu vaccine decreased by 14.5%. Other significant findings include an increase in advice to social distance (494.5%), an increase in advice to improve ventilation (1,368.9%), a decline in advice to cover your cough (58.2%) and a decline in advice to disinfect surfaces (76.7%). The strategies discussed more frequently are not currently recommended by Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for flu prevention.Meaning Significant changes in public health advice on flu prevention, as presented by high-circulation U.S. newspapers, occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in less consistency with CDC recommendations for flu prevention.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors