This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
OBJECTIVE To use the advantages of a ratio scale with verbal anchors in order to measure the risk perception in the novel coronavirus infection, which causes covid-19, in a health belief model-based questionnaire, as well as its validity and reproducibility. METHOD We used the health belief model, which explores four dimensions: perceived susceptibility (five questions), perceived severity (five questions), perceived benefits (five questions), and perceived barriers (five questions). Additionally, we included a fifth dimension, called pro-health motivation (four questions). The questions composed an electronic questionnaire disseminated by social networks for an one-week period. Answers were quantitative values of subjective representations, obtained by a psychophysically constructed scale with verbal anchors ratio (CentiMax ® ). Mean time for total filling was 12 minutes (standard deviation = 1.6). RESULTS We obtained 277 complete responses to the form. One was excluded because it belonged to a participant under 18 years old. Reproducibility measures were significant for 22 of the 24 questions in our questionnaire (Cronbach's α = 0.883). Convergent validity was attested by Spearman-Brown's split half reliability coefficient (r = 0.882). Significant differences among groups were more intense in perceived susceptibility and severity dimensions, and less in perceived benefits and barriers. CONCLUSION Our health belief model-based questionnaire using quantitative measures enabled the confirmation of popular beliefs about covid-19 infection risks. The advantage in our approach lays in the possibility of quickly, directly and quantitatively identifying individual belief profiles for each dimension in the questionnaire, serving as a great ally for communication processes and public health education.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marcelo Fernandes Costa (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: