[Skip to Content]

Claim CME

Public Health

Assessment of German Public Attitudes Toward Health Communications With Varying Degrees of Scientific Uncertainty Regarding COVID-19

Educational Objective
To identify the key insights or developments described in this article

1 Credit CME

JAMA Network Open

Published Online: December 10, 2020

Research Letter

Article Information and Disclosures

Odette Wegwarth, PhD^1,2;

Gert G. Wagner, PhD^1,3;

Claudia Spies, MD, PhD⁴;

Ralph Hertwig, PhD¹

Author Affiliations

¹Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
²Institute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science, Charitè–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
³Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), Berlin, Germany
⁴Center for Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Medicine, Charitè–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Read article on JAMA Network

Read Article Claim CME

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed scientific uncertainty in its raw form. When facts are uncertain, policy makers and health experts sometimes shy away from communicating scientific uncertainty,¹ fearing that the uncertainty will generate mistrust.² In Germany, for instance, the pandemic-related threat scenarios invoked have sometimes been devoid of uncertainty.³ Nevertheless, presenting uncertain aspects of the pandemic as certain may adversely affect citizens’ trust and compliance with containment measures should those reports later prove invalid.⁴ We assessed people’s preferences for health communications with varying degrees of scientific uncertainty in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and explore factors associated with the preferred form of communication.

Claim CME

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: November 12, 2020.

Published: December 10, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32335

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Wegwarth O et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Odette Wegwarth, PhD, Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany (wegwarth@mpib-berlin.mpg.de).

Author Contributions: Dr Wegwarth had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Wegwarth, Spies.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Wegwarth, Wagner, Hertwig.

Drafting of the manuscript: Wegwarth, Spies.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Wegwarth, Wagner, Hertwig.

Statistical analysis: Wegwarth, Wagner.

Obtained funding: Wegwarth, Hertwig.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Wegwarth, Spies.

Supervision: Wegwarth, Wagner, Hertwig.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Spies reported receiving grants from Aridis Pharmaceutical Inc, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Drägerwerk AG & Co, KGaA, Grünenthal GmbH, Infectopharm GmbH, Sedana Medical Ltd, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/German Research Society, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt eV (DLR)/German Aerospace Center, Einstein Stiftung Berlin/Einstein Foundation Berlin, European Society of Anaesthesiology, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss/Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), Inneruniversitäre Forschungsförderung/Inner University Grants, Projektträger im DLR/Project Management Agency, Stifterverband, World Health Organization collaborating center, Baxter Deutschland GmbH, Biotest AG, Cytosorbents Europe GmbH, Edwards Lifesciences Germany GmbH, Fresenius Medical Care, Grünenthal GmbH, Masimo Europe Ltd, Medtronic GmbH, Pfizer Pharma PFE GmbH, Dr F. Köhler Chemie GmbH, Sintetica GmbH, European Commission, Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft Þ.V./Philips, from Stiftung Charité, Aguettant Deutschland GmbH, AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co KG, Amomed Pharma GmbH, InTouch Health, Copra System GmbH, Correvio GmbH, and Max Planck Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV and personal fees from Georg Thieme Verlag outside the current work. In addition, Dr Spies reported having patents 10 2014 215 211.9, 10 2014 215 212.9, and 10 2018 114 364.8, all licensed and granted in Germany, and patent 10 2018 110 275.5 pending (applied for in Germany). No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: The study was funded by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The Max Planck Institute for Human Development had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: We thank Susannah Goss, MA (Max Planck Institute for Human Development), for her excellent help with editing our manuscript. We further thank Nico Siegel, PhD, and Christian Spinner, MA (both from Infratest dimap), for their valuable input on the survey setups and programming. All parties received compensation for their work.

References

van der Bles AM , van der Linden S , Freeman ALJ , et al. Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. R Soc Open Sci. 2019;6(5):181870. doi:10.1098/rsos.181870 PubMed Google Scholar

Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Q J Econ. 1961;75(4):643–669. doi:10.2307/1884324 Google Scholar Crossref

Gräf D , Hennig M. The narrowing of the world: on the media construction of Germany under COVID-19. Article in German. Magazin des Graduiertenkollegs Privatheit und Digitalisierung der Universität Passau. September 2020;13-20.Google Scholar

Wegwarth O , Wagner GG , Gigerenzer G . Can facts trump unconditional trust? evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians’ non–evidence-based cancer screening recommendations. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0183024. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183024 PubMed Google Scholar

Schwartz LM , Woloshin S , Black WC , Welch HG . The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):966-972. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

Arkes HR , Shaffer VA , Medow MA . Patients derogate physicians who use a computer-assisted diagnostic aid. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):189-202. doi:10.1177/0272989X06297391 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00  AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:

1.00 Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;;
1.00 Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;
1.00 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;
1.00 Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program; and
1.00 CME points in the American Board of Surgery’s (ABS) Continuing Certification program

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.