PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (\'claims\') detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms \'physical distancing\' and \'social distancing\'. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.
摘要：
科学证据定期指导政策决策1，行为科学日益成为这一过程的一部分2。2020年4月，一篇有影响力的论文提出了19项政策建议(“索赔”)，详细说明了行为科学的证据如何有助于减少影响和结束COVID-19大流行的努力。在这里，我们评估了747篇与大流行相关的研究文章，这些文章对这些说法进行了实证研究。我们报告了证据的规模以及证据是否支持它们以表明其对决策的适用性。两个独立的团队，涉及72名审稿人，为19项索赔中的18项找到了证据，两个团队都找到了支持这18项索赔中16项(89%)的证据。最有力的证据支持预期文化的说法，两极分化和错误信息将与政策有效性相关。声称值得信赖的领导者和积极的社会规范增加了对行为干预的坚持，这也有强大的经验支持，呼吁社会共识或两党协议也是如此。消息传递中的目标语言产生了混合效果，没有突出个人利益或保护他人的效果。没有可用的证据来评估使用术语“物理距离”和“社交距离”之间的任何明显差异。对包含数据的463篇论文的分析显示，样本通常很大；418篇涉及人类参与者，平均为16,848人（中位数为1,699人）。这种统计能力强调了行为科学研究在为政策决策提供信息方面的适用性。此外，通过实施标准化的证据选择和综合方法，我们扩大了在政策制定和优先次序中推进科学证据的更广泛影响。
