Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLyons, BA
dc.contributor.authorMerola, V
dc.contributor.authorReifler, J
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-06T07:13:18Z
dc.date.issued2020-03-20
dc.description.abstractRationale: Experts have recently argued that guidelines to take the full course of antibiotics are due for revision, instead recommending that patients stop when they feel better. It is unknown how communicating revised guidelines from medical experts about how long to take a course of antibiotics will affect beliefs, behavior, and trust in guidelines more generally. Objective. This study seeks to understand how revisions to long standing advice impacts the beliefs, behavior, and trust toward such guidelines from medical experts. Method: In a pre-registered experiment, we use a national sample of UK participants (N = 1,263) to test the effects of a message that reverses the prior full-course guideline (versus a status quo message to take the full course). We also test a secondary intervention that emphasizes that medical guidance and evidence may change over time. Results: Early stoppage messages significantly shifted personal beliefs and perceived expert consensus about early stoppage (a shift of 16%, 95% CI: 13.8% to 17.9%, p <.001) and behavioral intent (a shift of 19%, 95% CI: 15.3 to 21.8%, p < .001) in the intended direction. Yet, the new guideline also slightly decreased acceptance of uncertainty about future guidelines (a decrease of 2%, 95% CI: 0.2% to 3.1%, p = .022) and general intention to comply with other guidelines in the future (a decrease of 6%, 95% CI: 2.6% to 8.4%, p < .001); it did not affect perceptions of medical researchers’ or doctors’ credibility or respondents’ epistemic efficacy. Prior belief about early stoppage did not moderate receptivity to messages. Notably, though, we also find receptivity to early stoppage messages was contingent on deference to experts. We find no effect of a secondary intervention that emphasizes that medical guidance and evidence may change over time. Conclusions. Overall, our findings suggest the (U.K.) public is likely to accept new guidelines that change long standing advice to take a full course of antibiotics. While respondents show wariness about further future revisions, these data do not show that changing guidelines undermines trust in the experts that produce them.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 255, article 112943en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112943
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/126300
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8NFWCen_GB
dc.rights© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/  en_GB
dc.subjectAntibioticsen_GB
dc.subjectPublic health campaignsen_GB
dc.subjectConsensusen_GB
dc.subjectExpertiseen_GB
dc.subjectCredibilityen_GB
dc.titleShifting medical guidelines: Compliance and spillover effects for revised antibiotic recommendationsen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2021-07-06T07:13:18Z
dc.identifier.issn0277-9536
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData sharing statement: All data and analysis scripts, along with materials and analysis plan, are permanently available at the site of the trial registration. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8NFWCen_GB
dc.identifier.journalSocial Science and Medicineen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/  en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-03-16
exeter.funder::European Commissionen_GB
rioxxterms.funderEuropean Union Horizon 2020en_GB
rioxxterms.identifier.project682758en_GB
rioxxterms.versionAMen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-03-20
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2021-07-06T07:10:41Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2021-07-06T07:14:18Z
refterms.panelCen_GB
rioxxterms.funder.project22ae5fa0-e4a3-4d4c-93d0-63bc4ba64f3ben_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/  
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/