PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
In the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative that people understand and comply with self-isolation guidelines. We tested whether a simplified version of the guidelines and a simplified version with visual aids would affect comprehension and intention to self-isolate during the containment phase of the pandemic in the UK, in March 2020, compared to the standard guidelines.
We conducted an online, three-armed parallel randomized controlled trial. Participants were English and over 18. The survey software randomized them into conditions; they were blind to condition. The control group read the 7-page standard guidelines (the current version at the time of the trial). The intervention groups were given either a 3-page simplified version, with a summary box on the front page and numbered bullet points, or the same simplified version with pictograms illustrating the points in the box. Primary outcomes were comprehension of the guidelines, as measured by the number of correct answers given to six questions about the content, and the proportion who answered that they would \'definitely\' stay at home for 7 days if symptomatic.
Recruitment was from 13 to 16 March 2020, with 1845 participants randomised and all data analysed. The Control group averaged 4.27 correct answers, the Simplified 4.20, and the Simplified + visual aids 4.13, out of a possible total of 6 correct answers. There were no differences in comprehension in the unadjusted models; however, when the model was adjusted for demographic variables, there was lower comprehension in the simplified + visual aids condition than in the control, (ß = - 0.16, p = 0.04998). There were no statistically significant differences in intention to stay home: Control was 85%, Simplified 83%, and Simplified + visual aids condition 84%.
Simplified guidance did not improve comprehension compared to the standard guidance issued in the containment phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and simplified guidance with visual aids may even have worsened comprehension. Simplified guidance had no effect on intention to stay home if symptomatic. This trial informed COVID-19 policy and provides insights relevant to guidance production in the acute phase of a major public health emergency.
We conducted an online, three-armed parallel randomized controlled trial. Participants were English and over 18. The survey software randomized them into conditions; they were blind to condition. The control group read the 7-page standard guidelines (the current version at the time of the trial). The intervention groups were given either a 3-page simplified version, with a summary box on the front page and numbered bullet points, or the same simplified version with pictograms illustrating the points in the box. Primary outcomes were comprehension of the guidelines, as measured by the number of correct answers given to six questions about the content, and the proportion who answered that they would \'definitely\' stay at home for 7 days if symptomatic.
Recruitment was from 13 to 16 March 2020, with 1845 participants randomised and all data analysed. The Control group averaged 4.27 correct answers, the Simplified 4.20, and the Simplified + visual aids 4.13, out of a possible total of 6 correct answers. There were no differences in comprehension in the unadjusted models; however, when the model was adjusted for demographic variables, there was lower comprehension in the simplified + visual aids condition than in the control, (ß = - 0.16, p = 0.04998). There were no statistically significant differences in intention to stay home: Control was 85%, Simplified 83%, and Simplified + visual aids condition 84%.
Simplified guidance did not improve comprehension compared to the standard guidance issued in the containment phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and simplified guidance with visual aids may even have worsened comprehension. Simplified guidance had no effect on intention to stay home if symptomatic. This trial informed COVID-19 policy and provides insights relevant to guidance production in the acute phase of a major public health emergency.
摘要：
在COVID-19大流行中，人们必须理解并遵守自我隔离准则。我们测试了指南的简化版本和带有视觉辅助的简化版本是否会在英国大流行的遏制阶段影响理解和自我隔离的意图，2020年3月，与标准指南相比。
我们在网上进行了一次,三臂平行随机对照试验。参与者是英语和18岁以上。调查软件将他们随机分配到条件中；他们对条件视而不见。对照组阅读7页的标准指南（试验时的当前版本）。干预组获得了3页的简化版，首页上有一个摘要框和编号的要点，或相同的简化版本，象形图说明框中的点。主要结果是对指南的理解，以关于内容的六个问题的正确答案的数量来衡量，以及回答说，如果有症状，他们肯定会在家呆7天的比例。
招募时间为2020年3月13日至16日，对1845名参与者进行了随机分组，并对所有数据进行了分析。对照组平均4.27个正确答案，在可能的总共6个正确答案中，简化版4.20和简化版+视觉辅助4.13。在未调整的模型中，理解没有差异；然而，当模型根据人口统计学变量进行调整时，简化+视觉辅助条件的理解力低于对照组，(β=-0.16,p=0.04998)。留在家中的意向没有统计学上的显着差异：对照组为85％，简化83%,和简化+视觉辅助条件84%。
与2020年3月COVID-19大流行遏制阶段发布的标准指南相比，简化指南并没有提高理解力，使用视觉辅助的简化指南甚至可能会恶化理解力。如果有症状，简化的指导对留在家中的意图没有影响。该试验为COVID-19政策提供了信息，并提供了与重大公共卫生紧急情况急性期指导生产相关的见解。
我们在网上进行了一次,三臂平行随机对照试验。参与者是英语和18岁以上。调查软件将他们随机分配到条件中；他们对条件视而不见。对照组阅读7页的标准指南（试验时的当前版本）。干预组获得了3页的简化版，首页上有一个摘要框和编号的要点，或相同的简化版本，象形图说明框中的点。主要结果是对指南的理解，以关于内容的六个问题的正确答案的数量来衡量，以及回答说，如果有症状，他们肯定会在家呆7天的比例。
招募时间为2020年3月13日至16日，对1845名参与者进行了随机分组，并对所有数据进行了分析。对照组平均4.27个正确答案，在可能的总共6个正确答案中，简化版4.20和简化版+视觉辅助4.13。在未调整的模型中，理解没有差异；然而，当模型根据人口统计学变量进行调整时，简化+视觉辅助条件的理解力低于对照组，(β=-0.16,p=0.04998)。留在家中的意向没有统计学上的显着差异：对照组为85％，简化83%,和简化+视觉辅助条件84%。
与2020年3月COVID-19大流行遏制阶段发布的标准指南相比，简化指南并没有提高理解力，使用视觉辅助的简化指南甚至可能会恶化理解力。如果有症状，简化的指导对留在家中的意图没有影响。该试验为COVID-19政策提供了信息，并提供了与重大公共卫生紧急情况急性期指导生产相关的见解。
