Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 3;15(12):e0243264. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243264

COVID-19 misinformation: Mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan

Malik Sallam 1,2,3,*, Deema Dababseh 4, Alaa Yaseen 1, Ayat Al-Haidar 4, Duaa Taim 4, Huda Eid 4, Nidaa A Ababneh 5, Faris G Bakri 6,7,8, Azmi Mahafzah 1,2
Editor: Flávia L Osório9
PMCID: PMC7714217  PMID: 33270783

Abstract

Since the emergence of the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its spread as a pandemic, media was teeming with misinformation that led to psychologic, social and economic consequences among the global public. Probing knowledge and anxiety regarding this novel infectious disease is necessary to identify gaps in knowledge and sources of misinformation which can help public health efforts to design and implement more focused interventional measures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, attitude and effects of misinformation about COVID-19 on anxiety level among the general public residing in Jordan. This cross-sectional study was conducted using an online-based questionnaire that took place in April 2020, which targeted people residing in Jordan, aged 18 and above. The questionnaire included items on the following: demographic characteristics of the participants, knowledge about COVID-19, anxiety level and misconceptions regarding the origin of the pandemic. The total number of participants included in final analysis was 3150. The study population was predominantly females (76.0%), with mean age of 31 years. The overall knowledge of COVID-19 was satisfactory. Older age, males, lower monthly income and educational levels, smoking and history of chronic disease were associated with perceiving COVID-19 as a very dangerous disease. Variables that were associated with a higher anxiety level during the pandemic included: lower monthly income and educational level, residence outside the capital (Amman) and history of smoking. Misinformation about the origin of the pandemic (being part of a conspiracy, biologic warfare and the 5G networks role) was also associated with higher anxiety levels. Social media platforms, TV and news releases were the most common sources of information about the pandemic. The study showed the potential harmful effects of misinformation on the general public and emphasized the need to meticulously deliver timely and accurate information about the pandemic to lessen the health, social and psychological impact of the disease.

Introduction

The entire world faced an unprecedented challenge in the form of the most recent pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in a massive number of infections throughout the world with a higher mortality rate among high risk groups (elderly, those with comorbidities) [2]. The public was left in a state of disarray due to the socio-economic consequences of the pandemic [35]. This global phenomenon dominated the media and became part of everyday conversation [6, 7]. The emergence of this virus led to a worldwide lockdown, army enforced rules, disruption of education and a shift in the global economy [4]. The swift implementation of these measures and rapid escalation in number of cases and deaths caused by the virus may have caused a state of uncertainty among the general public, which demonstrates the significance of providing correct knowledge and reliable information for proper management of this public health emergency [5, 8].

The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 vary, but commonly include: fever, cough, shortness of breath, vomiting and diarrhea [911]. The virus is primarily transmitted via respiratory droplets and close contact with an infected person [11]. SARS-CoV-2 can remain active for hours and even days on surfaces, therefore, touching infected surfaces can lead to the spread of infection [12, 13]. To date, there are limited therapeutic options and no vaccine available for COVID-19 infection, and management hinges on supportive therapy [14]. This is why frequent hand washing and social distancing are the ideal protective measures [15].

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared early on during the course of COVID-19 pandemic the existence of an accompanying “infodemic” [16]. This infodemic was defined as “an over-abundance of information–some accurate and some not–that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it” [16]. Inaccurate or false information that are communicated regardless of the deception intent is termed “misinformation” [17, 18]. This includes the circulation of conspiracy theories that prevail at times of fear and uncertainty [19]. Conspiracy theories regarding the origins of COVID-19 might be a way for the public to make sense of this pandemic. However, dangerous speculations about the virus might diminish the efforts in controlling the spread of infection [8, 20]. Thus, it is important to assess the misconceptions and misbeliefs among the public which can reveal defects that should be targeted by awareness tools [21].

The potential negative effects of COVID-19 misinformation have been the subject of active research since the onset of the pandemic [8, 2226]. Our previous investigation of this topic entailed students at the University of Jordan (UJ) with results pointed to an association between the belief in conspiracy regarding the origin of the virus and a lower COVID-19 knowledge accompanied with higher anxiety level [27]. In Jordan, strict governmental-issued infection control measures that included wide lockdowns, curfew, mask and social distancing enforcement, and prohibition of large gatherings were helpful in delaying the first wave of COVID-19 epidemic in the country. However, these measures can be viewed currently as “delaying the inevitable”, since the number of daily diagnosed cases of COVID-19 escalated rapidly from about 500 active cases in late August 2020, to reach more than 60,000 active cases by the end of October 2020 [28].

Deciphering the level of knowledge and attitude toward this unprecedented pandemic can help in identifying the current gaps in knowledge about COVID-19. Resources must be utilized to bridge this gap and promote proper knowledge about COVID-19, which in turn will help in disease control. Studying anxiety is of prime importance as well, since it may drive the public behavior and attitude towards the infection control and mitigation measures [29, 30]. Thus, the objectives of the current study were: (1) to assess the overall COVID-19 knowledge and attitude among the general public residing in Jordan, (2) to evaluate the effects of misinformation regarding COVID-19 origins on the anxiety level, and (3) to assess the main sources of knowledge regarding the disease in the country.

Methods

Study design and description of the questionnaire

This cross-sectional study was conducted using an online-based questionnaire that took place between April 11, 2020 (21:00) to April 14, 2020 (00:00), thus spanning 75 hours and targeting residents in Jordan aged 18 years and above. Participation in the study was voluntary and an informed consent was included. Participants were recruited via sending mass invitations to the contacts of the authors through WhatsApp groups, and by posting public announcements on Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as on public Facebook groups that share interests and opinions regarding the Jordanian society, asking the participants to share the survey with their contacts. The questionnaire comprised six sections with a total of 39 items addressing various subjects regarding knowledge, attitude, misinformation, sources of knowledge, and anxiety of participants regarding COVID-19. The language used to conduct the survey was Arabic (S1 Appendix).

The questionnaire contained items on socio-demographic information (age, nationality, sex, governorate of residence, marital status, monthly family income, educational level, history of smoking, and the presence of any chronic disease). Four items were used to assess the attitude towards the quarantine period (perception of the danger of the disease, adherence to quarantine measures, spending quality time with the family, and annoyance by the inability to attend religious houses of worship).

Two items were used to assess the sources of information, and three items were included to determine the role of conspiracy theories, biological warfare, and 5G networks in the origin and the spread of the pandemic. An additional item was also included to examine the belief in a divine role in the origin of the disease (S1 Appendix). Incomplete survey, manifested by item-non-response, was allowed and analysis was done using ‘available-case’ approach.

COVID-19 knowledge score (K-score) calculation

Thirteen items were used to assess the overall COVID-19 knowledge among the study participants. These items included knowledge of symptoms of the disease (fever, cough, vomiting and diarrhea, and shortness of breath), knowledge of virus transmission (touching infected surfaces, close contact with an infected person, and transmission via blood), infectivity of the virus on surfaces for long periods of time, use of antibiotics for treating the disease, availability of a vaccine, remedial effect of garlic, onion and ginger on the infection, ability of summer heat to inactivate the virus, and possibility of reinfection by the virus (S1 Appendix). Individual K-scores were considered valid and included in the analyses if the participant provided responses to all 13 items.

Assessment of the anxiety score

The final section of seven items was used to measure the level of anxiety during the government-enforced quarantine period using the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale [31]. This scale is a reliable method for anxiety assessment and included four possible responses to each item. The study participants were asked how often they have been bothered by each of the seven core symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder during the past two weeks. Response options are “not at all,” “several days,” “more than half the days,” and “nearly every day,” scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Individual anxiety-scores were considered valid and included in the analyses if the participant provided responses to all seven items. The maximum possible anxiety score was 21 with the minimum being zero.

Source of information about COVID-19

To study the most common sources of COVID-19 information, we allowed the participants to select a single option out of the following choices: Ministry of Health official website, scientific journals, medical doctors, television programs and news releases, or social media platforms. If they selected social media, another single option was required to be answered (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or WhatsApp, S1 Appendix).

Ethical permission

The study was approved by the Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Forensic Medicine and by the Scientific Research Committee at the School of Medicine/UJ, (using WhatsApp conference call) which was later registered under the reference number 2479/2020/67 at the School of Medicine/UJ. An informed consent was ensured by the presence of an introductory section of the questionnaire, with submission of responses implying the agreement to participate. All collected data were treated confidentially.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS v22.0 for Windows. Significance was considered for P-values <0.050. We used the chi-squared (χ2) test to evaluate the significance of relationships between categorical variables. For continuous variables (e.g. age), we used the Mann-Whitney U (M-W) to compare the mean among two independent groups, and the Kruskal Wallis (K-W) test to compare the mean among more than two independent groups.

Results

Characteristics of the study population

The total number of individuals who participated in the survey and that were included in final analysis was 3150 after filtering out responses from those who were less than 18 years old. This resulted in a minimum of 1.8% margin of error (an expression of how much the response of the study sample is representative of the general population), considering the 95% confidence interval and the current total population of Jordan (10,184,790 people), which is related to the items with response from all study participants [32, 33]. General features of the study participants are summarized in (Table 1). The median age of the study participants was 27 (mean: 31, interquartile range: 22–37). Females dominated the study population (n = 2358, 76.0% with 47 cases of non-response), and residents of the Central region of Jordan represented 84.1% of the participants (with 78 cases of non-response). For educational level and monthly income, the majority of study participants had an undergraduate degree (diploma or bachelor’s degrees) representing 73.6% and the majority had a monthly income of less than 1000 JODs (n = 2413, 78.3%, Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the study population.

Feature Number Percentage
Sex Male 745 24.0%
Female 2358 76.0%
Nationality Jordanian 2894 92.8%
Non-Jordanian 223 7.2%
Regiona North 375 12.2%
Central 2584 84.1%
South 113 3.7%
Marital status Single 1617 51.8%
Married 1414 45.3%
Divorced 59 1.9%
Widow/widower 29 0.9%
Monthly income Less than 500 JODc 1233 40.0%
500–1000 JOD 1180 38.3%
More than 1000 JOD 668 21.7%
Educational levelb High school or less 496 15.8%
Undergraduate degree 2310 73.6%
Postgraduate degree 333 10.6%
Smoking non-Smoker 2328 74.4%
Smoker 803 25.6%
History of chronic disease No 2858 91.1%
Yes 278 8.9%

aRegion: North region includes the following Jordanian governorates: Irbid, Ajloun, Jerash and Mafraq; Central region includes Balqa, Amman (the capital), Zarqa and Madaba; South region includes: Karak, Tafilah, Ma’an and Aqaba.

bEducational level: Undergraduate degree includes diploma and bachelor’s degrees; postgraduate degree includes masters and Doctor of Philosophy degrees.

cJOD: Jordanian Dinar.

Note: Despite having 3150 as the total number of study participants, the numbers above might not add up to reach this total, due to the existence of partial response to some survey items.

COVID-19 knowledge

The overall knowledge of the study participants regarding COVID-19 is illustrated in (Fig 1). The majority of the study participants correctly responded to eleven out of the thirteen items, with the least percentage of correct responses observed in the following two items: the virus can remain active on surfaces for few hours (49.7%) and reinfection by COVID-19 is not possible (23.7%, Fig 1).

Fig 1. The overall knowledge of COVID-19 among the study participants shown as the percentage of correct responses to each of the thirteen items assessing COVID-19 knowledge.

Fig 1

All items were shown as correct statements. COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019, SARS-CoV-2: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

The total number of participants who had a valid K-score was 2988, with a mean K-score of 10.2 (range: 1.0–13.0). Higher level of knowledge regarding COVID-19 was seen among residents of Amman (mean K-score 10.3 vs. 10.1, p = 0.003; M-W), participants with higher income (10.5 vs. 10.2 vs. 10.0, p<0.001; K-W), participants with higher educational level (10.6 vs. 10.2 vs. 9.8, p<0.001; K-W) and among non-smokers (10.2 vs. 10.0, p = 0.016, M-W; Fig 2).

Fig 2. Demographic features correlated with differences in COVID-19 knowledge score (K-score) among the study participants.

Fig 2

Higher K-score was seen among residents of Amman (A), participants with higher monthly income (B), non-smokers (C), and among participants with higher educational level (D). M-W: Mann-Whitney U test, K-W: Kruskal-Wallis test, CI: confidence interval of the mean K-score, JOD: Jordanian dinar.

In addition, participants who felt annoyed by the inability to attend places of worship displayed a lower mean K-score (10.1 vs. 10.4, p<0.001; M-W). For the survey items related to COVID-19 misinformation, the participants who believed that the pandemic is related to a conspiracy and those who believed that it was part of a biologic warfare had lower mean K-score (10.0 vs. 10.4, p<0.001 for both comparisons; M-W). In addition, those who believed in the role of 5G networks in COVID-19 spread had a lower mean K-score (9.8 vs. 10.3, p<0.001; M-W). Moreover, those who believed that COVID-19 is a spiritual divine test showed a lower K-score compared to those who did not hold such a belief (10.1 vs. 10.4, p<0.001; M-W, Fig 3).

Fig 3. Correlation between COVID-19 knowledge score (K-score) and items assessing misinformation regarding origin of COVID-19 pandemic.

Fig 3

Lower K-score was seen among participants who stated that COVID-19 is part of a global conspiracy plot (A), participants who stated that COVID-19 is related to biologic warfare (B), participants who believed in the role of 5G networks in COVID-19 spread (C), and participants who thought that COVID-19 is a divine test (D). P-values were calculated using Mann-Whitney U test, CI: confidence interval of the mean K-score.

Perception of COVID-19 danger and attitude towards quarantine

The majority of study population felt that the disease is moderately dangerous (n = 1896, 60.3%), followed by 1152 participants who perceived the disease as very dangerous (36.6%). Older participants felt the disease as more dangerous compared to younger participants (40.6% vs. 31.7%), p<0.001; χ2, Table 2). Males were more likely to perceive the disease as very dangerous compared to females (41.2% vs. 35.2%, p = 0.001; χ2). Participants with the lowest monthly income were more inclined to feel that COVID-19 is very dangerous (41.0% vs. 34.5% vs. 32.5%, p = 0.002; χ2). Also, those with the lowest educational level were more likely to believe that the disease is very dangerous (44.0% vs. 34.8% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.001; χ2). Smokers (42.8% vs. 34.6%) and those with history of chronic disease (48.2% vs. 35.5%) had higher likelihood to perceive COVID-19 as a very dangerous disease (p<0.001 for both comparisons; χ2). Those who believed that the current pandemic was a spiritual test were more likely to perceive the disease as very dangerous (38.0% vs. 29.8%, p = 0.001; χ2). Married participants were more likely to feel that COVID-19 is very dangerous compared to single participants (40.6% vs. 32.5%, p<0.001; χ2, Table 2). The vast majority of study participants reported adhering to the quarantine measures (n = 3072, 97.9%). Variables that were associated with higher likelihood to break the quarantine measures included males (4.3% vs. 1.3%, p<0.001; χ2) and history of smoking (3.7% vs. 1.4%, p<0.001; χ2, S2 Appendix).

Table 2. Perception of COVID-19 danger among study participants.

Characteristic Self-reported COVID-19 danger Not dangerous Moderately dangerous Very dangerous P-valuec
Nb (%) N (%) N (%)
Age group Less than 27 36 (2.5) 939 (65.8) 453 (31.7) <0.001
More than or equal to 27 52 (3.4) 849 (55.9) 617 (40.6)
Sex Male 31 (4.2) 407 (54.6) 307 (41.2) 0.001
Female 65 (2.8) 1463 (62.1) 829 (35.2)
Marital status Single 49 (3.0) 1042 (64.4) 526 (32.5) <0.001
Married 46 (3.3) 794 (56.2) 573 (40.6)
Divorced 1 (1.7) 31 (52.5) 27 (45.8)
Widow/widower 1 (3.4) 12 (41.4) 16 (55.2)
Monthly income Less than 500 JODa 38 (3.1) 690 (56.0) 505 (41.0) 0.002
500–1000 JOD 37 (3.1) 735 (62.3) 407 (34.5)
More than 1000 JOD 21 (3.1) 430 (64.4) 217 (32.5)
Educational level High school or less 21 (4.2) 257 (51.8) 218 (44.0) 0.001
Undergraduate degree 67 (2.9) 1439 (62.3) 803 (34.8)
Postgraduate degree 9 (2.7) 197 (59.2) 127 (38.1)
Smoking non-Smoker 65 (2.8) 1457 (62.6) 805 (34.6) <0.001
Smoker 31 (3.9) 428 (53.3) 344 (42.8)
History of chronic disease No 92 (3.2) 1750 (61.3) 1015 (35.5) <0.001
Yes 4 (1.4) 140 (50.4) 134 (48.2)

aJOD: Jordanian dinar.

bN: Number.

cP-value: Calculated using chi-squared test (χ2).

Beliefs and misinformation about COVID-19 origin

1. Is COVID-19 part of a global conspiracy?

Overall, a total of 1501 of the study participants believed that COVID-19 is part of a global conspiracy (47.9%, Fig 4). This belief was more common among females compared to males (50.1% vs. 41.2%, p<0.001; χ2), among married participants compared to single participants (50.5% vs. 45.8%, p = 0.011; χ2) and among smokers compared to non-smokers (52.8% vs. 46.3%, p = 0.001; χ2). The gradual increase in monthly income was associated with a gradual decrease in the belief that COVID-19 is part of a global conspiracy (50.5% in those with income of <500 JOD vs. 48.2% in those with income of 500–1000 JOD vs. 43.8% among those with income of >1000 JOD, p = 0.019; χ2). For educational level, the belief in conspiracy was the highest among those with a lower educational level (50.4% among those with high school or less degree vs. 48.5% among those with an undergraduate degree, vs. 40.8% among those with postgraduate degrees, p = 0.016; χ2).

Fig 4. The overall belief of the study participants with regard to origin and spread of COVID-19.

Fig 4

COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019, 5G: the 5th generation mobile network.

2. Is COVID-19 part of a biological warfare?

The majority of study participants had a belief that SARS-CoV-2 origin was related to biological warfare (n = 1778, 57.0%, Fig 4). This belief was more common among females (59.7% vs. 48.6%, p<0.001; χ2), married participants (59.2% vs. 55.0%, p = 0.023; χ2), participants with low and middle income (p = 0.001; χ2), and lower educational level (p = 0.002; χ2).

3. Do 5G networks have a role in COVID-19 spread?

The overall belief in 5G networks role in the spread of COVID-19 was generally less compared to the previously mentioned items (conspiracy and biological warfare) (n = 641, 21.0%, Fig 4). This misbelief was higher among females (23.6% vs. 12.8% in males, p<0.001; χ2), married participants (23.1% vs. 19.4% among singles, p = 0.017; χ2), lower monthly income (24.2%, vs. 20.9% vs. 15.9%, p<0.001; χ2), and lower educational level (28.0% vs. 20.4% vs. 15.5%, p<0.001; χ2).

4. Is COVID-19 a spiritual divine test or trial?

The majority of study participants stated that COVID-19 pandemic is a divine spiritual test (n = 2595, 82.7%). Variables associated with such a belief included females (85.0% vs. 75.8%, p<0.001; χ2), Jordanian nationality (83.3% vs. 77.1% among non-Jordanians, p = 0.019; χ2), residence outside Amman (86.5% vs. 80.1% among those in Amman, p<0.001; χ2), marriage (86.5% vs. 79.3, p<0.001; χ2), lower educational level (88.2%, vs. 82.9% vs. 73.5%, p<0.001; χ2), lower monthly income (88.4% vs. 82.9% vs. 71.6%, p<0.001; χ2), and non-smoking (84.2% vs. 78.5%, p<0.001; χ2).

Anxiety regarding COVID-19

The total number of participants who had a valid anxiety score was 3035, with mean score of 9.2 (range: zero-21.0). Variables with significant association to higher anxiety level were female sex (mean anxiety score: 9.3 vs 8.7, p = 0.007, M-W), residence outside Amman (9.5 vs. 9.0, p = 0.006; M-W), lower educational level (10.1 vs. 9.1 vs. 8.5, p<0.001; K-W), lower monthly income (9.9 vs. 9.0 vs. 8.3, p<0.001; K-W), and smoking (9.9 vs. 9.0, p<0.001; M-W, Fig 5). In addition, those who felt annoyed by the inability to attend places of worship had a higher mean anxiety score (9.7 vs. 8.2, p<0.001; M-W). The participants who thought that the quarantine gave them an opportunity to spend a quality time with their families had a lower mean anxiety score (8.9 vs. 10.8, p<0.001; M-W). Higher anxiety scores were found among those who believed that COVID-19 is related to conspiracy (9.7 vs. 8.7; p<0.001; M-W), biological warfare believers (9.6 vs. 8.6, p<0.001; M-W), those who believed in the role of 5G networks in facilitating COVID-19 spread (10.3 vs. 8.9, p<0.001; M-W), and those who believed that the pandemic is a spiritual divine test (9.4 vs. 8.0, p<0.001; M-W, Fig 6).

Fig 5. Demographic features correlated with differences in anxiety score among the study participants.

Fig 5

Lower anxiety score was seen among residents of Amman (A), participants with a higher monthly income (B), non-smokers (C), among participants with a higher educational level (D), and among males (E). M-W: Mann-Whitney U test, K-W: Kruskal-Wallis test, CI: confidence interval of the mean anxiety score, JOD: Jordanian dinar.

Fig 6. Correlation between anxiety score and items assessing misinformation regarding origin of COVID-19 pandemic.

Fig 6

Higher anxiety score was seen among participants who stated that COVID-19 is part of a global conspiracy plot (A), participants who stated that COVID-19 is related to biologic warfare (B), participants who believed in the role of 5G networks in COVID-19 spread (C), and participants who thought that COVID-19 is a divine test (D). P-values were calculated using Mann-Whitney U test, CI: confidence interval of the mean anxiety.

The main media and other sources of information about the pandemic

The most common source of information for study participants regarding the pandemic were social media platforms (n = 1075, 34.4%), followed by TV and news releases (n = 850, 27.2%), the official Ministry of Health website on COVID-19 (n = 771, 24.6%) and finally scientific journals and opinion of medical doctors (n = 432, 13.8%). For social media platforms, Facebook predominated as the main source of information about the pandemic (81.1%), followed by WhatsApp (7.0%), YouTube (4.6%), Twitter (4.5%) and Instagram (2.9%).

The participants who relied on TV and news releases as the main source of knowledge about the virus were older in age compared to those who used other sources combined (33 vs. 30 years old, p<0.001; M-W). Those who relied on doctors and scientific journals had a higher mean K-score (10.5 vs. 10.1, p<0.001; M-W) and a lower mean anxiety score (8.1 vs. 9.3, p<0.001; M-W, Fig 7).

Fig 7. Correlation between the main sources of information regarding COVID-19 and both the anxiety and K-scores.

Fig 7

CI: confidence interval of the mean score, K-score: COVID-19 knowledge score. MoH: Jordanian Ministry of Health.

Participants who depended on medical doctors and scientific journals as their main source of information about COVID-19 were less predisposed to believe in conspiracy (38.4% vs. 49.3%, p<0.001; χ2), and its related misinformation (5G networks role: 14.2% vs. 22.0%, p<0.001; χ2, biological warfare role: 47.7% vs. 58.3%, p<0.001; χ2 and belief that the pandemic is a spiritual test: 69.1% vs. 48.9%, p<0.001; χ2). They were also less prone to feel that the disease is very dangerous (30.6% vs. 37.6%, p<0.001; χ2). Higher reliance on information provided by scientific journals and medical doctors was seen among males (18.8% vs. 12.4%, p<0.001; χ2), participants with a higher educational level (25.7% vs. 14.0% vs. 4.9%, p<0.001; χ2), participants with a higher monthly income (21.4% vs. 13.7% vs. 9.6%, p<0.001), residence in Amman (15.2% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.012; χ2), non-Jordanian nationality (19.9% vs. 13.4%, p = 0.007) and single marital status (17.0% vs. 10.4%, p<0.001; χ2).

Discussion

The key results of this study can be summarized as follows: the overall knowledge of COVID-19 among residents in Jordan was satisfactory. This satisfactory knowledge was shown by the percentage of correct answers in response to the total of thirteen items that were used to assess COVID-19 knowledge in this study. Overall, more than 87% correct responses were found for eight items and more than 63% correct responses for eleven items. The participants scored less for two items: SARS-CoV-2 can remain active on surfaces for few days rather than few hours (50.3%) and re-infection by COVID-19 is not possible (23.7%). The lower knowledge in relation to these two items can be attributed to ongoing research that has not achieved a widespread outreach for the public yet. Such research indicated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces for more than 24 hours depending on the nature of the surface [13, 34]. For the possibility of re-infection, the current evidence points to unlikely occurrence of such a phenomenon despite the need for more research tackling this aim in light of increasing reports on its genuine occurrence [3541].

The high overall knowledge might be attributed to general interest of the public in this pandemic that became a global phenomenon and such high knowledge has been reported recently by several studies around the globe [4247]. However, upon further dissecting COVID-19 knowledge, in relation to possible origins of the pandemic, severe gaps in knowledge were revealed. This was manifested by high prevalence of belief in conspiracy (47.9%), biologic warfare role (57.0%) and 5G networks’ role (21.0%) in the origin and spread of the virus. In our previous work among university students, we found a significant association between higher anxiety during the current pandemic and the belief in conspiracy in COVID-19 origin [27]. The results of the current study showed some harmful effects of belief in conspiracy in relation to higher anxiety levels.

Even though the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 was scientifically determined to a large extent, which further discredits the role of a conspiracy in the origin of the disease, many people still grasp to such delusions [48, 49]. The current climate of fear and uncertainty seems as a fertile soil from which conspiracy beliefs are born and thrive [50, 51]. Thus, the high prevalence of inaccurate beliefs about COVID-19 origins seems a plausible result. In addition, the link that was demonstrated between higher anxiety levels and conspiracy belief in this study, is not unique and can augment the previous evidence that such belief is harmful [27, 52, 53]. In particular, a recent study showed that belief in conspiracy is a predictor of distress and anxiety among health-care workers [54]. Another study found that such belief was associated with the presence of depression or distress [55].

The clearest variable associated with lower overall knowledge about the disease, belief in conspiracy and higher anxiety level was the lower socio-economic status (lower educational level and lower monthly income). This result is consistent with findings from various recent studies, and points to the importance of targeting such groups with intensified awareness campaigns [43, 44, 5658].

The most common main source of information about COVID-19 reported by the participants were the social media platforms. The role of social media in fueling and spreading implausible notions cannot be overlooked [5961]. The spread of such misinformation via social media outlets is not a recent phenomenon that accompanied the current crisis, but also involved several health-related aspects (e.g. vaccination, AIDS denialism, Zika fever outbreak, etc.) in the last decade [6163]. To fight against the spread of harmful misinformation, the correct public health messages should be delivered in a user-friendly style with emphasis on fact-checking tools [64]. The prime role relies on experts, physicians and the policy makers to advocate for social media campaigns that can aid in establishing a culture of fact-checking [65].

Regarding the anxiety level of the study participants and taking into account that the survey was conducted in April 2020 (early on during the course of the pandemic), the overall mean anxiety score showed a mild anxiety among the study participants. Females showed a higher anxiety level compared to males and this can be partly explained by the differences in physiology which increase females’ susceptibility to develop anxiety and stress [66, 67]. Also, the lower socio-economic status was associated with a higher anxiety level which can be attributed to the lack of income security during the crisis. Moreover, participants living outside Amman had higher anxiety; this might be due to certain hardships accompanying inhabitants of rural areas and more isolated areas, like financial strains and social isolation. Such results are in line with recent research pointing to similar associations [7, 44, 6870]. Furthermore, smokers had higher mean anxiety score compared to non-smokers; this is because of the rising emphasis on how smokers are more vulnerable to infections including COVID-19, besides the worsened prognosis in case of protracting the disease [71, 72].

For the perception of COVID-19 degree of threat, males, participants with a lower socio-economic status, smokers and those with a history of chronic disease were likely to perceive the disease as very dangerous. This result appears plausible, particularly for individuals with comorbidities, considering the high-risk of severe disease and mortality among this group [73].

Finally, one observation in this study warrants further and meticulous exploration. This entails the attitude and belief towards the origin of the disease and the government-enforced public health measures from a religious perspective. Feeling annoyed by the inability to perform religious practices due to forced closure of mosques and churches was seen in the majority of study participants (67.3%). Another observation was that 82.7% of the study population believed that the origin of the pandemic is a form of test or trial by God. A higher level of anxiety among the aforementioned groups can be attributed to the inability of a majority of participants to worship in large gatherings in either mosques or churches during the lockdown period in the country. A large sum of previous reports showed that religious belief can reduce anxiety in various health-related conditions [7477]. Further research is needed to establish the role of religious belief in coping at time of crisis.

Study limitations

Despite the relatively large sample size, bias was observed for sex (a majority of females) and for age. However, age seems to reflect the age distribution among the residents of Jordan at least to some extent. In addition, it was justified to have predominance of residents in the Central region as it harbours roughly two-thirds of population in Jordan including the Capital, Amman. Furthermore, we should clearly state that the results of the current study might not be representative of the Jordanian population. This is partly related to survey distribution via contacts and networks of the authors, which make sampling bias inevitable. Thus, further studies are needed to confirm our findings at different national and cultural levels. The study validity can be another limitation in relation to K-score calculation, despite having a majority of items adopted from previously published work [45]. Finally, we have to state the inherent limitations of surveys including the response of the participants in a way they think would please the researchers, in addition to the problem of available-case analysis. However, we believe that the later analysis did not result in severe bias considering that item non-response did not exceed 1.0% for the majority of survey items (S3 Appendix).

Conclusions

COVID-19 poses a crisis that drastically changed the world; this is illustrated by the social, psychological and economic impact of the disease. This pandemic is framed with endless streams of misinformation and fake news, which has its own consequences and spreads even more confusion. In the current research, we inspected knowledge of COVID-19 at a country level, with a special focus on the prevalence of belief in different conspiracy theories regarding the origin of the pandemic. The results of the study can provide new insights to the general public, policy makers, and media platforms to the importance of fact-checking and the potential harms of spreading misinformation, particularly those related to conspiracies surrounding the origin of this pandemic. The results of this study showed satisfactory knowledge about the disease among residents in Jordan, with large-scale lack of knowledge in certain aspects of the disease regarding origin and conspiracy surrounding this pandemic. Individuals with a lower socio-economic status showed higher anxiety, lower COVID-19 knowledge and higher belief in misinformation. Focused awareness campaigns and proper delivery of correct information is mandatory, particularly for this group to reduce the negative impact of the pandemic on their lives. Belief in the role of conspiracies, biological warfare, and 5G networks in the origin and spread of the disease was prevalent in this study and was also associated with a higher level of anxiety, which indicates that COVID-19 misinformation may have harmful effects among the general public. The spread of misinformation and conspiracies is exacerbated by different media outlets, which is why proper management and close monitoring of posted content is necessary. Our results indicated that the reliance on reliable sources to get information on the current pandemic (e.g. scientific journals and medical doctors) was associated with lower levels of anxiety. This demonstrates the significant role that should be played by the scientific community and clinicians to address the gaps in knowledge and to correct misinformation among the general public.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Consent form and questionnaire translated to English (the original form in Arabic is provided as well).

(PDF)

S2 Appendix. Supplementary tables (additional results).

(PDF)

S3 Appendix. Table on the number and percentage of item non-response in the survey.

(PDF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Lipsitch M, Swerdlow DL, Finelli L. Defining the Epidemiology of Covid-19—Studies Needed. N Engl J Med. 2020. 382: 1194–1196. 10.1056/NEJMp2002125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, Crawford JM, McGinn T, et al. Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA. 2020. 10.1001/jama.2020.6775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020 395: 912–920. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nicola M, Alsafi Z, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, et al. The Socio-Economic Implications of the Coronavirus and COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review. Int J Surg. 2020. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dubey S, Biswas P, Ghosh R, Chatterjee S, Dubey MJ, et al. Psychosocial impact of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020. 14: 779–788. 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.05.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hua J, Shaw R. Corona Virus (COVID-19) "Infodemic" and Emerging Issues through a Data Lens: The Case of China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. 17 10.3390/ijerph17072309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gao J, Zheng P, Jia Y, Chen H, Mao Y, et al. Mental health problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak. PLoS One. 2020 15: e0231924 10.1371/journal.pone.0231924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mian A, Khan S. Coronavirus: the spread of misinformation. BMC Med. 2020 18: 89 10.1186/s12916-020-01556-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Guan WJ, Ni ZY, Hu Y, Liang WH, Ou CQ, et al. Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020 382: 1708–1720. 10.1056/NEJMoa2002032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhou M, Zhang X, Qu J. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a clinical update. Front Med. 2020. 10.1007/s11684-020-0767-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rothan HA, Byrareddy SN. The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. J Autoimmun. 2020 109: 102433 10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kampf G, Todt D, Pfaender S, Steinmann E. Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their inactivation with biocidal agents. J Hosp Infect. 2020 104: 246–251. 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.01.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A, et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 382: 1564–1567. 10.1056/NEJMc2004973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sanders JM, Monogue ML, Jodlowski TZ, Cutrell JB. Pharmacologic Treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review. JAMA. 2020. 10.1001/jama.2020.6019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020 395: 1973–1987. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Organization WH. Novel Coronavirus (‎‎ 2019-nCoV)‎‎: situation report, 13. 2020.
  • 17.Baines D, Elliott RJ (2020) Defining misinformation, disinformation and malinformation: An urgent need for clarity during the COVID-19 infodemic.
  • 18.Kumar S, Shah N. False information on web and social media: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:180408559. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lancet T. The truth is out there, somewhere. Lancet (London, England). 2020. 396: 291 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31678-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bavel JJV, Baicker K, Boggio PS, Capraro V, Cichocka A, et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav. 2020. 4: 460–471. 10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.West R, Michie S, Rubin GJ, Amlot R. Applying principles of behaviour change to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Nat Hum Behav. 2020. 4: 451–459. 10.1038/s41562-020-0887-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Georgiou N, Delfabbro P, Balzan R. COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs and their relationship with perceived stress and pre-existing conspiracy beliefs. Pers Individ Dif. 2020. 166: 110201 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ahmad AR, Murad HR. The Impact of Social Media on Panic During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Iraqi Kurdistan: Online Questionnaire Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020. 22: e19556 10.2196/19556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Li HO, Bailey A, Huynh D, Chan J. YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19: a pandemic of misinformation? BMJ Glob Health. 2020. 5 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002604 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Allington D, Duffy B, Wessely S, Dhavan N, Rubin J. Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychol Med. 2020. 1–7. 10.1017/S003329172000224X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Zhang Y, Lu JG, Rand DG. Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention. Psychol Sci. 2020. 956797620939054. 10.1177/0956797620939054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sallam M, Dababseh D, Yaseen A, Al-Haidar A, Ababneh NA, et al. Conspiracy beliefs are associated with lower knowledge and higher anxiety levels regarding COVID-19 among students at the University of Jordan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020. 17: 2020.2004.2021.20064147. 10.3390/ijerph17144915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Worldometer. (2020) Coronavirus Cases in Jordan.
  • 29.Jones JH, Salathe M. Early assessment of anxiety and behavioral response to novel swine-origin influenza A(H1N1). PLoS One. 2009. 4: e8032 10.1371/journal.pone.0008032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Apisarnthanarak A, Apisarnthanarak P, Siripraparat C, Saengaram P, Leeprechanon N, et al. Impact of Anxiety and Fear for COVID-19 Toward Infection Control Practices Among Thai Healthcare Workers. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2020. 1–6 10.1017/ice.2020.280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lowe B, Decker O, Muller S, Brahler E, Schellberg D, et al. Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population. Med Care. 2008. 46: 266–274. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318160d093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.CheckMarket (2020) Calculate sample size margin of error.
  • 33.Worldometer. (2020) Jordan Population.
  • 34.Zhang DX. SARS-CoV-2: air/aerosols and surfaces in laboratory and clinical settings. J Hosp Infect. 2020. 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.05.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Long QX, Liu BZ, Deng HJ, Wu GC, Deng K, et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020. 26: 845–848. 10.1038/s41591-020-0897-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Chandrashekar A, Liu J, Martinot AJ, McMahan K, Mercado NB, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection protects against rechallenge in rhesus macaques. Science. 2020. 10.1126/science.abc4776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ota M. Will we see protection or reinfection in COVID-19? Nat Rev Immunol. 2020. 20: 351 10.1038/s41577-020-0316-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sallam M. Urgent necessity to address the issue of COVID-19 reinfection. Preprint. 2020. 10.13140/RG.2.2.26744.39687 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Madan M, Kunal S. COVID-19 reinfection or relapse: an intriguing dilemma. Clin Rheumatol. 2020. 39: 3189 10.1007/s10067-020-05427-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.He F, Luo Q, Lei M, Fan L, Shao X, et al. Successful recovery of recurrence of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA in COVID-19 patient with systemic lupus erythematosus: a case report and review. Clin Rheumatol. 2020. 39: 2803–2810. 10.1007/s10067-020-05230-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.To KK, Hung IF, Ip JD, Chu AW, Chan WM, et al. COVID-19 re-infection by a phylogenetically distinct SARS-coronavirus-2 strain confirmed by whole genome sequencing. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. 10.1093/cid/ciaa1275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Al-Hanawi MK, Angawi K, Alshareef N, Qattan AMN, Helmy HZ, et al. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Toward COVID-19 Among the Public in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front Public Health. 2020. 8: 217 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Azlan AA, Hamzah MR, Sern TJ, Ayub SH, Mohamad E. Public knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19: A cross-sectional study in Malaysia. PLoS One. 2020. 15: e0233668 10.1371/journal.pone.0233668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Abdelhafiz AS, Mohammed Z, Ibrahim ME, Ziady HH, Alorabi M, et al. Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitude of Egyptians Towards the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). J Community Health. 2020. 10.1007/s10900-020-00827-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zhong BL, Luo W, Li HM, Zhang QQ, Liu XG, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among Chinese residents during the rapid rise period of the COVID-19 outbreak: a quick online cross-sectional survey. Int J Biol Sci. 2020 16: 1745–1752. 10.7150/ijbs.45221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Reuben RC, Danladi MMA, Saleh DA, Ejembi PE. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Towards COVID-19: An Epidemiological Survey in North-Central Nigeria. J Community Health. 2020. 10.1007/s10900-020-00881-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hezima A, Aljafari A, Aljafari A, Mohammad A, Adel I. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese residents towards COVID-19. East Mediterr Health J. 2020. 26: 646–651. 10.26719/emhj.20.076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lu R, Zhao X, Li J, Niu P, Yang B, et al. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet. 2020. 395: 565–574. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Benvenuto D, Giovanetti M, Salemi M, Prosperi M, De Flora C, et al. The global spread of 2019-nCoV: a molecular evolutionary analysis. Pathog Glob Health. 2020. 114: 64–67. 10.1080/20477724.2020.1725339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.van Prooijen JW, Douglas KM. Conspiracy theories as part of history: The role of societal crisis situations. Mem Stud. 2017. 10: 323–333. 10.1177/1750698017701615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Constantinou M, Kagialis A, Karekla M. COVID-19 Scientific Facts Vs. Conspiracy Theories: 0–1: Science Fails to Convince Even Highly Educated Individuals. Preprint in Research Square. 2020. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-33972/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Jolley D. Are conspiracy theories just harmless fun? Psychologist. 2013. 26: 60–62 [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jakub Šrol, Eva Ballová Mikušková, Vladimira Cavojova. When we are worried, what are we thinking? Anxiety, lack of control, and conspiracy beliefs amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Chen X, Zhang SX, Jahanshahi AA, Alvarez-Risco A, Dai H, et al. Belief in a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory as a Predictor of Mental Health and Well-Being of Health Care Workers in Ecuador: Cross-Sectional Survey Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020. 6: e20737 10.2196/20737 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Patsali ME, Mousa DV, Papadopoulou EVK, Papadopoulou KKK, Kaparounaki CK, et al. University students' changes in mental health status and determinants of behavior during the COVID-19 lockdown in Greece. Psychiatry Res. 2020. 292: 113298 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lau LL, Hung N, Go DJ, Ferma J, Choi M, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of COVID-19 among income-poor households in the Philippines: A cross-sectional study. J Glob Health. 2020. 10: 011007 10.7189/jogh.10.011007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Geldsetzer P. Knowledge and Perceptions of COVID-19 Among the General Public in the United States and the United Kingdom: A Cross-sectional Online Survey. Ann Intern Med. 2020. 10.7326/M20-0912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Roy D, Tripathy S, Kar SK, Sharma N, Verma SK, et al. Study of knowledge, attitude, anxiety & perceived mental healthcare need in Indian population during COVID-19 pandemic. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020. 51: 102083 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ahmed W, Vidal-Alaball J, Downing J, Lopez Segui F. COVID-19 and the 5G Conspiracy Theory: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Data. J Med Internet Res. 2020. 22: e19458 10.2196/19458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Llewellyn S. Covid-19: how to be careful with trust and expertise on social media. BMJ. 2020. 368: m1160 10.1136/bmj.m1160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Waszak PM, Kasprzycka-Waszak W, Kubanek A. The spread of medical fake news in social media–the pilot quantitative study. Health policy and technology. 2018. 7: 115–118 [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Gu Z, Badger P, Su J, Zhang E, Li X, et al. A vaccine crisis in the era of social media. National Science Review. 2018. 5: 8–10 [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kou Y, Gui X, Chen Y, Pine K. Conspiracy talk on social media: collective sensemaking during a public health crisis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2017. 1: 1–21 [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Tangcharoensathien V, Calleja N, Nguyen T, Purnat T, D’Agostino M, et al. Framework for Managing the COVID-19 Infodemic: Methods and Results of an Online, Crowdsourced WHO Technical Consultation. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020. 22: e19659 10.2196/19659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Trethewey SP. Strategies to combat medical misinformation on social media. Postgrad Med J. 2020. 96: 4–6. 10.1136/postgradmedj-2019-137201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Donner NC, Lowry CA. Sex differences in anxiety and emotional behavior. Pflugers Arch. 2013. 465: 601–626. 10.1007/s00424-013-1271-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Bahrami F, Yousefi N. Females are more anxious than males: a metacognitive perspective. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. 2011. 5: 83–90 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Moghanibashi-Mansourieh A. Assessing the anxiety level of Iranian general population during COVID-19 outbreak. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020. 51: 102076 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Vindegaard N, Benros ME. COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence. Brain Behav Immun. 2020. 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Mazza C, Ricci E, Biondi S, Colasanti M, Ferracuti S, et al. A Nationwide Survey of Psychological Distress among Italian People during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. 17 10.3390/ijerph17093165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Vardavas CI, Nikitara K. COVID-19 and smoking: A systematic review of the evidence. Tob Induc Dis. 2020. 18: 20 10.18332/tid/119324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Patanavanich R, Glantz SA. Smoking is Associated with COVID-19 Progression: A Meta-Analysis. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020. 10.1093/ntr/ntaa082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Yang J, Zheng Y, Gou X, Pu K, Chen Z, et al. Prevalence of comorbidities in the novel Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of infectious diseases. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Moreira-Almeida A, Neto FL, Koenig HG. Religiousness and mental health: a review. Braz J Psychiatry. 2006. 28: 242–250. 10.1590/s1516-44462006000300018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Alves RR, Alves Hda N, Barboza RR, Souto Wde M. The influence of religiosity on health. Cien Saude Colet. 2010. 15: 2105–2111. 10.1590/s1413-81232010000400024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Safara M, Bhatia M. Relationship of religious beliefs with anxiety and depression. Delhi Psyquiatric Journal. 2008. 11: 177–179 [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Jansen KL, Motley R, Hovey J. Anxiety, depression and students’ religiosity. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. 2010. 13: 267–271 [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Flávia L Osório

7 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-21682

COVID-19 misinformation: mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sallam

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 22 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Flávia L. Osório, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a table of relevant demographic details, d) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Summary: This is an interesting analysis of knowledge, attitudes and anxiety around COVID-19. The factors explored are valuable, and will add to the evidence needed on this topic. The study could be stronger with deeper data analysis, and more care around causal statements.

- Line 49: Should correctly write the full name of SARS-CoV-2 if including the full name and acronym.

- Line 54-55: this sentence seems to suggest that ‘public apprehension’ is what caused rumors to spread. Could the authors clarify?

- Lines 58-64: This paragraph discusses the clinical illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning and end, but for some reason, the sentences in the middle discuss transmission and prevention – could the authors re-organize?

- Line 77: States that the objective of the study is to explore the ‘repercussions of misinformation’ – but this doesn’t seem to be present in lines 78-81? Except maybe ‘anxiety level’ as the sole repercussion of misinformation? I suspect there are many more multifaceted repercussions due to misinformation – would be good to clarify the scope of this study so that objectives align well.

- Methods, study design: Could the authors also include details on GAD 7 in the design section? I found detail on this later in the methods, but would be good to also include more move into the study design section.

- Overall: would be good to be consistent in terms of number of decimal places. There are times where authors use 3, 2 and 1.

- Lines 137: I am confused about what this margin of error is? Is it for responses to a specific question? Or per item in the survey? Won’t error increase when compiling an index, was that accounted for?

- Line 140: what is a non-response? Is that an incomplete survey?

- Also, were there missing data? How did the authors deal with missing responses to certain questions. Did missingness lead to bias?

- Could the authors integrate discussion on why there were so many more female respondent vs male? And how could this potentially bias/affect their findings?

- Line 334-336. While this comparison appears to hold when just comparing means, the authors should try multivariate regression to account for other key demographics factors that might be relevant to the outcomes of anxiety and belief in conspiracy. This would help address potential confounding. Without further analysis, this causal statement is a bit too strong – later in the discussion the authors point out that SES plays a role, so why wasn’t all the data utilized in the model?

- Line 358: Why does an April survey matter? Vs May or June? Did the authors expect anxiety to peak at a certain month for a specific reason?

Reviewer #2: I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper. This study attempted to contribute to the knowledge of COVID-19 misinformation in Jordan. Although the research is interesting there are significant errors that should be corrected before any consideration.

First of all, the manuscript structure should be improved. I advise the following:

1. Introduction (sub-introduction parts)

2. Literature Review or Related Work. A table referring to others research studies is a good option to improve the quality of this section based on UGC.

3. Methodology. Research Hypothesis should be justified one by one according to other studies purposes.

4. Analysis of results

5 Discussion

6. Conclusion (sub-conclusions parts such as limitations and future research)

Also the abstract is incorrect. I advise the following, now the authors are focused in details that are not interesting for the reader in the abstract:

Purpose (mandatory)

Design/methodology/approach (mandatory)

Findings (mandatory)

Practical implications (if applicable)

Originality/value (mandatory)

Questions to be answered:

What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature about COVID-19 (theoretical contributions)? Again, the authors should make clear arguments to explain what is the originality and value of the research work. This should be stated in the final paragraphs discussion and conclusion sections.

In Conclusions part, the authors should include a final paragraph describing the “social implications" and "originality or value" of this study. What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have in political parties strategies online?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 3;15(12):e0243264. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243264.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 Sep 2020

Dear Dr. Flávia L. Osório

Regarding our manuscript with ID: PONE-D-20-21682, entitled “COVID-19 misinformation: mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan”,

Your comments and those of the reviewers were highly insightful and enabled us to improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments of the reviewers.

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript “COVID-19 misinformation: mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan”. The revisions were highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in the manuscript file. A clean version of the revised manuscript is submitted as well.

We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in PLoS One.

Sincerely, and on behalf of the co-authors

Malik Sallam. MD, PhD

Response to comments of the Academic Editor (Dr. Flávia L. Osório)

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: Based on the editor’s comment, we edited the style of the manuscript to meet the journal’s requirements, including the font size of headings and main text, file naming and reference style among others. Please refer to the clean version of the revised manuscript.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a table of relevant demographic details, d) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

Response: Based on the editor’s comment, and for the description on how the participants were recruited, we added the following statement to further clarify this issue: “Participants were recruited via sending mass invitations to the contacts of the authors through WhatsApp groups, and by posting public announcements on Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as on public Facebook groups that share interests and opinions regarding the Jordanian society, asking the participants to share the survey with their contacts.” (page 5, lines 89-92, clean version).

Also, we believe that we have already stated most of the information required in the manuscript file. E.g. for the recruitment date, in the first paragraph of the methods section, we stated that “This cross-sectional study was conducted using an online-based questionnaire that took place between April 11, 2020 (21:00) to April 14, 2020 (00:00), thus spanning 75 hours”. (page 5, lines 85-88, clean version).

For the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the sole criterion used for exclusion was an age less than 18 years, which was stated in the methods section: “targeting residents in Jordan aged 18 years and above”. A table with detailed description of the demographic features of study participants is present in the manuscript (Table 1), which describes gender, nationality, educational level, monthly income, among other features of the study participants. (page 9, lines 165-173, clean version).

For the representation of the study sample of the larger population, the following statements are present in the discussion section, the limitations paragraph: “Despite the relatively large sample size, bias was observed for gender (a majority of females) and for age. However, age seems to reflect the age distribution among the residents of Jordan at least to some extent. In addition, it was justified to have predominance of residents in the Central region as it harbours roughly two-thirds of population in Jordan including the Capital, Amman. Furthermore, we should clearly state that the results of the current study might not be representative of the Jordanian population. This is partly related to survey distribution via contacts and networks of the authors, which make sampling bias inevitable. Thus, further studies are needed to confirm our findings at different national and cultural levels.” (Pages 20 and 21, lines 415-427, clean version).

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #1

Reviewer #1: Summary: This is an interesting analysis of knowledge, attitudes and anxiety around COVID-19. The factors explored are valuable, and will add to the evidence needed on this topic. The study could be stronger with deeper data analysis, and more care around causal statements.

- Line 49: Should correctly write the full name of SARS-CoV-2 if including the full name and acronym.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment, we re-wrote the full name of the virus as follows: “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2”, (page 3, line 47, clean version).

- Line 54-55: this sentence seems to suggest that ‘public apprehension’ is what caused rumors to spread. Could the authors clarify?

Response: Based on the question raised by the reviewer, we rephrased this statement to make it clear as follows: “The swift implementation of these measures and rapid escalation in number of cases and deaths caused by the virus may have caused a state of uncertainty among the general public.” (Page 3, lines 53-56, clean version).

Our explanation is related to the previous paragraph that describes the measures taken by many countries in the world in response to the pandemic including the “lockdown, army enforced rules, disruption of education and a shift in the global economy”, which took place rapidly and resulted in a state of uncertainty among the general public. Also, the lack of accurate and sometimes conflicting reports regarding different aspects and future of the pandemic created a state of fear and anxiety among the general public.

- Lines 58-64: This paragraph discusses the clinical illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning and end, but for some reason, the sentences in the middle discuss transmission and prevention – could the authors re-organize?

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we re-organized the paragraph as follows: “SARS-CoV-2 can remain active for hours and even days on surfaces, therefore, touching infected surfaces can lead to the spread of infection. To date, there are limited therapeutic options and no vaccine available for COVID-19 infection, and management hinges on supportive therapy. This is why frequent hand washing and social distancing are the ideal protective measures.” (Page 3, lines 59-63, clean version).

- Line 77: States that the objective of the study is to explore the ‘repercussions of misinformation’ – but this doesn’t seem to be present in lines 78-81? Except maybe ‘anxiety level’ as the sole repercussion of misinformation? I suspect there are many more multifaceted repercussions due to misinformation – would be good to clarify the scope of this study so that objectives align well.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we deleted the first statement of the objectives paragraph to make the section clearer, as the objectives numbered in the following sentences entail the major aims of the study, including the previous deleted statement. (Page 4, lines 76-79, clean version).

- Methods, study design: Could the authors also include details on GAD 7 in the design section? I found detail on this later in the methods, but would be good to also include more move into the study design section.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we added the following statement regarding the generalized anxiety disorder screener (GAD-7) in the general population. “The study participants were asked how often they have been bothered by each of the seven core symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder. Response options are “not at all,” “several days,” “more than half the days,” and “nearly every day,” scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively.” (Page 6, lines 127-130, clean version).

- Overall: would be good to be consistent in terms of number of decimal places. There are times where authors use 3, 2 and 1.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we re-checked the number of decimal places throughout the manuscript and we adhered to one decimal place for percentages and scores, and three places for p values.

- Lines 137: I am confused about what this margin of error is? Is it for responses to a specific question? Or per item in the survey? Won’t error increase when compiling an index, was that accounted for?

Response: The margin of error is an expression of how much the response of the study sample is representative of the general population. The smaller margin of error indicates more representation of the general population. Thus, we used the overall margin of error to assess for the representation of our study sample. However, the reviewer raised an important point, which is related to responses to specific questions. Since there are partial responses to some survey items, the margin of error may vary for each question. Thus, we added the following statement to the results section: “This resulted in a minimum of 1.8% margin of error considering the 95% confidence interval and the current total population of Jordan (10,184,790 people), which is related to the items with response from all study participants”. (Page 8, lines 145-148, clean version).

- Line 140: what is a non-response? Is that an incomplete survey?

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for raising this important issue and enabling us to clarify it in the manuscript. We meant that some participants in the study did not provide all information, and they provided responses to some items only. Thus, we changed the non-response into “item non-response”, and we made the following changes to the methods and discussion as follows: In the methods section “Incomplete survey, manifested by item-non-response, was allowed and analysis was done using ‘available-case’ approach”. (Page 5, lines 104-105, clean version).

In the limitations paragraph of the discussion section “Finally, we have to state the inherent limitations of surveys including the response of the participants in a way they think would please the researchers, in addition to the problem of available-case analysis. However, we believe that the later analysis did not result in severe bias considering that item non-response did not exceed 1.0% for the majority of survey items.” (Pages 20 and 21, lines 423-427, clean version).

We also believe that the issue of item non-response did not severely result in bias in our analysis as the percentage of item non-response was below 1.0% for the majority of survey items (Table below).

Table. Item non-response in the survey

Survey Item Valid responses Missing responses Item non-response Percentage

Age 2947 203 6.4

K-Score 2988 162 5.1

Anxiety score 3035 115 3.7

Do you believe that 5G networks are helping in spread of COVID-19? 3053 97 3.1

Governorates of Jordan 3072 78 2.5

Monthly income 3081 69 2.2

Gender 3103 47 1.5

Nationality 3117 33 1.0

Marital status 3119 31 1.0

Do you think that COVID-19 is related to biological warfare? 3122 28 0.9

Main Source of Knowledge about COVID-19 3128 22 0.7

Smoking 3131 19 0.6

Do you think the COVID-19 pandemic is part of a global conspiracy theory? 3133 17 0.5

History of chronic disease 3136 14 0.4

Do you think that the quarantine helped you spend a quality time with your family? 3136 14 0.4

Are you adhering to government quarantine rules and staying home? 3137 13 0.4

Educational degree 3139 11 0.3

Do you think that COVID-19 is a trial or test from God to humankind? 3139 11 0.3

Do you feel annoyed regarding your inability to practice prayers in places of worship (mosque or church)? 3144 6 0.2

Is COVID-19 a dangerous disease? 3145 5 0.2

- Also, were there missing data? How did the authors deal with missing responses to certain questions. Did missingness lead to bias?

Response: Please refer to our detailed response to the previous point above.

- Could the authors integrate discussion on why there were so many more female respondent vs male? And how could this potentially bias/affect their findings?

Response: As is was mentioned in the limitations part of the discussion section, bias was observed for gender (a majority of females). It was hard for us to find a reason for such an outcome of females being predominant in our sample, however, one potential explanation is that one step in recruitment was via approaching contacts of the authors (six out of nine were females). But we don’t feel that this was a major reason of such an outcome, as the survey announcement and invitation for participation was done using public pages and groups in social media outlets (mostly Facebook and Twitter). For the majority of analyses undertaken in this study, gender was taken into account and we noticed that females to perceive the disease as less dangerous compared to males and they tended to believe more in the role of conspiracy.

- Line 334-336. While this comparison appears to hold when just comparing means, the authors should try multivariate regression to account for other key demographics factors that might be relevant to the outcomes of anxiety and belief in conspiracy. This would help address potential confounding. Without further analysis, this causal statement is a bit too strong – later in the discussion the authors point out that SES plays a role, so why wasn’t all the data utilized in the model?

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for raising this issue. Based on the reviewer’s comment, we conducted multinomial logistic regression analysis were gender, income, COVID-19 knowledge and anxiety remained linked to believe in the role of conspiracy in the origin of the pandemic, and added the significant results to the methods and results sections as follows:

In methods: “To analyze the variables associated with higher likelihood of believing in the role of conspiracy in the origin of the pandemic, we conducted multinomial logistic regression analysis using the following variables (age, gender, nationality, monthly income, educational level, K-score and anxiety score).” (Page 7, lines 135-138, clean version).

In results section: “Using multinomial logistic regression analysis, we found an association of belief in conspiracy regarding the origin of the pandemic with a lower K-score (p<0.001), a higher anxiety score (p=0.006), female gender (p<0.001), and lower monthly income (p=0.029).” (Page 15, lines 289-292, clean version).

Do you think the COVID-19 pandemic is part of a global conspiracy theory? (Answer: Yes) Significance Exp(B) 95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B)

Gender Male vs. female <0.001 0.704 0.584 0.849

Age Less than 27 vs. more or equal 27 0.057 0.853 0.725 1.005

Nationality Jordanian vs. Non-Jordanian 0.454 1.129 0.821 1.553

Residence Amman vs. outside Amman 0.177 1.120 0.95 1.319

Monthly income Less 500 vs. more 1000 0.029 1.278 1.025 1.593

500 to 1000 vs. more than 1000 0.175 1.160 0.936 1.436

Educational level High school or less vs. postgraduate degree 0.172 1.257 0.906 1.745

Undergraduate degree vs. postgraduate degree 0.066 1.285 0.983 1.680

K-score Less than 10 vs. ≥ 10 <0.001 1.551 1.299 1.851

Anxiety score Less than 9 vs. ≥ 19 0.006 0.803 0.686 0.94

- Line 358: Why does an April survey matter? Vs May or June? Did the authors expect anxiety to peak at a certain month for a specific reason?

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for helping us to clarify this point. The response to COVID-19 in Jordan evolved over time, as the government activated the National Defense Law starting in late March that enforced lockdowns and curfew with closure of universities, schools, and prohibited public gatherings and religious practices in large masses including the closure of mosques and churches. With time, these measures started to loosen, and we believe that this might have an effect on anxiety levels regarding the pandemic. Based on the reviewer’s comment we added the following statement in the discussion section: “early on during the course of the pandemic”. (Page 19, line 389, clean version).

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #2

Reviewer #2: I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper. This study attempted to contribute to the knowledge of COVID-19 misinformation in Jordan. Although the research is interesting there are significant errors that should be corrected before any consideration.

First of all, the manuscript structure should be improved. I advise the following:

1. Introduction (sub-introduction parts), 2. Literature Review or Related Work, A table referring to others research studies is a good option to improve the quality of this section based on UGC, 3. Methodology. Research Hypothesis should be justified one by one according to other studies purposes, 4. Analysis of results, 5 Discussion, 6. Conclusion (sub-conclusions parts such as limitations and future research)

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion; however, we believe that we followed the manuscript description by PLoS One (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-manuscript-organization). Thus, we prefer to keep the manuscript style in the current format.

Also the abstract is incorrect. I advise the following, now the authors are focused in details that are not interesting for the reader in the abstract:

Purpose (mandatory)

Design/methodology/approach (mandatory)

Findings (mandatory)

Practical implications (if applicable)

Originality/value (mandatory)

Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment we made minor changes to the abstract. However, we followed the guidelines by PLoS One regarding the manuscript and abstract formatting. Also, we believe that we included all aforementioned details in the abstract. E.g. purpose: “The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, attitude and effects of misinformation about COVID-19 on anxiety level among the general public residing in Jordan”, (Page 2, lines 26-28, clean version). Design: “This cross-sectional study was conducted using an online-based questionnaire that took place between April 2020” (Page 2, lines 28-29, clean version). For findings, we believe that the major results were included in the abstract. Originality/value: “The study showed the potential harmful effects of misinformation on the general public and emphasized the need to meticulously deliver timely and accurate information about the pandemic to lessen the health, social and psychological impact of the disease.” (Page 2, lines 41-43, clean version)

Questions to be answered:

What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature about COVID-19 (theoretical contributions)? Again, the authors should make clear arguments to explain what is the originality and value of the research work. This should be stated in the final paragraphs discussion and conclusion sections.

Response: The reviewer’s comment is very valuable and based on the second question we edited the conclusions section to accommodate these points (please refer to the conclusions section of the revised manuscript and the response to the question below).

In Conclusions part, the authors should include a final paragraph describing the “social implications" and "originality or value" of this study. What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have in political parties strategies online?

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we added the following paragraph to the conclusions section: “In the current research, we inspected knowledge of COVID-19 at a country level, with a special focus on the public embrace of conspiracy regarding the origin of the pandemic. The results of the study can provide new insights to the general public, policy makers, and media platforms to the importance of fact-checking and the potential harms of spreading misinformation, particularly those related to conspiracies surrounding the origin of this pandemic.” (Page 21, lines 433-437, clean version)

Decision Letter 1

Flávia L Osório

16 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-21682R1

COVID-19 misinformation: mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sallam,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The article was revised by a new reviewer, who considered some changes to the current presentation of the text necessary. Several suggestions were made that will certainly improve the quality of the material presented.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 30 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Flávia L. Osório, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

Their article was revised by a new reviewer, who considered some changes to the current presentation of the text necessary. Several suggestions were made that will certainly improve the quality of the material presented.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed correctly the indicated changes by this reviewer. This reviewer has not additional changes to be make to this interesting research study.

Reviewer #3: This is an interesting paper that explores knowledge, attitudes, and misinformation about COVID-19 and its effects on anxiety levels among adults in Jordan. Sources of information about the virus are also explored. The results of this paper are very important to highlight the consequences of misinformation so that the delivery of timely and accurate information is prioritized as pandemic management strategies are updated. However, the manuscript will need restructuring to better guide the reader through the paper. In particular, the authors should ensure that each analysis and writing decision always links back to the original research aims.

Below are more detailed comments and recommendations:

Major issues

Introduction

1. The introduction would benefit from supplementation and restructuring in order to provide the necessary background to frame the importance of this research, as well as to contextualize the setting in which this research was undertaken. I would suggest the following structure: (1) Global impact of COVID-19 (which the authors have already included); (2) Proper conceptualization of misinformation (e.g. definition, how it spreads) and its consequences (e.g. deaths in Iran due to false belief that ingesting methanol kills the virus); (3) Context of COVID-19 in Jordan (some details have been given in the response to reviewer 1’s last comment, but would be helpful if this were expanded upon and included in the main manuscript); (4) Why examining anxiety level is warranted/important, since it is one of the key outcome variables.

2. The objectives of the study are very clearly stated in lines 76-79 (clean version), which is great to see. These should guide the way that the subsequent sections of the paper are structured, as I will mention in a few comments below.

Methods

3. (Statistical analysis) While I see the author’s use of regression as a response to a comment from reviewer 1, it is not well justified why the most “complex” statistical approach was employed on belief in conspiracy as an outcome, since this is not one of the main research objectives. As the aim of the study is to evaluate knowledge, attitude and misinformation *on anxiety level*, if regression is used, it should be on this outcome. If the authors choose to retain their regression analyses on belief in conspiracy, why this approach was taken for this outcome in particular needs to be justified.

Results

4. While the level of detail the authors have included in their results is commendable, the sheer volume of results may be overwhelming for the reader. I suggest picking out results that will be expanded on in the discussion instead of reporting on each finding individually, and in particular, being more selective about which demographic associations to report.

5. The sections of the results should be restructured so that the research questions, as stated in the introduction, are answered in sequence: (1) Knowledge, attitudes, and misinformation; (2) The effects of (1) on anxiety; (3) COVID-19 information sources.

6. If regression analysis is used, it is important that its results are displayed in a table, and for coefficient estimates to be reported in the main text, in addition to the significance levels that are currently present in the manuscript.

Discussion

7. Discussions about the belief in conspiracy theories and anxiety levels were addressed separately, and as I understood, mainly highlighted prevalence and demographic associations, respectively. However, this discussion piece should be reworked to address effects of misinformation on anxiety in order to answer the second research objective.

Conclusion

8. The key takeaway message needs to be more clearly highlighted. Based on the title of the paper, it would seem that the main message is: not only has this paper shown that misinformation is prevalent, but that it contributes to higher anxiety levels (i.e. more than “harmless delusions).

9. Having framed the issue that this study has revealed and to round off the conclusion, the authors could consider highlighting another important finding as a solution – that knowledge from reliable information sources seems to reduce this anxiety.

Minor issues

Introduction

10. The use of the correct tense needs to be checked for consistency and/or appropriateness throughout the paper (e.g. “The entire world is facing an unprecedented challenge…” (line 46, clean version) vs. “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) resulted in…” (line 47-48, clean version))

Methods

11. The authors may consider removing the following sentences as this information is already present elsewhere in the methods: “Participation in the study was voluntary and an informed consent was included. The questionnaire was sent through Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and other social media platforms.” (lines 87-89, clean version).

12. The methods section would also benefit from restructuring so that it is more intuitive for the reader to follow. The first paragraph is great, and I would recommend describing the questionnaire sections in the same sequence that they are mentioned in 93-94 (clean version): knowledge, attitude, misinformation, information sources, anxiety, and then sociodemographic variables. The descriptions of ethical permission and statistical approach can then follow.

13. In order to avoid confusion about what a “valid” K-/anxiety score may mean (e.g. that the measures were constructed from a validated scale), lines 121/122 and 129/130 (clean version) could be reworded to something like "Individual K-scores were considered valid and included in the analyses if the participant provided responses to all 13 items”.

14. It is important to describe what “as appropriate” (line 135, clean version) means – which tests were used, for what, and why?

Results

15. Similar to reviewer 1, I am also confused about the 1.8% margin of error. The response the authors provided to the reviewer would be helpful to include in the manuscript, and how this margin of error was calculated should also be described.

16. The following sentence is incomplete: “While those who thought that the quarantine gave them an opportunity to spend a quality time with their families had a lower mean anxiety score (8.9 vs. 10.8, p<0.001; M-W).” (line 221-222, clean version)

17. The following sentence needs to be revised for clarity: “Older participants perceived the disease…” (lines 243-246, clean version)

18. The authors may consider whether gender (men/women) or sex (female/male) is being examined in the study and use the appropriate language consistently throughout the paper.

19. Some results that are described are not presented within the tables or figures (e.g. spending time with family, demographic associations with conspiracy beliefs or information sources). Even if these results are not the main focus of the paper, if they are mentioned in the body of the text, they should at least be included as supplementary material.

20. The percentages reported for each source of information (from line 318, clean version), at first glance, appears quite low. From the questionnaire, I see that participants were asked to select their primary (vs. common) source of info and only allowed to select one option? This should be mentioned because it is more intuitive that people would consult more than one information source, and the phrasing “the most common source…” could be misleading.

Discussion

21. The following sentence needs to be revised for clarity: “More than 87% correct responses were found for eight items and more than 63% correct responses for eleven items out of thirteen total items that were used to assess COVID-19 knowledge in this study” (lines 349-351, clean version)

22. The authors should consider acknowledging the emergence of more recent evidence that COVID-19 reinfection may be possible (lines 356-357, clean version).

23. The sentence in lines 365-367 (clean version) should be revised. As it currently reads, it seems like the there is an association between misinformation and anxiety/knowledge as a combined item.

24. Given the length of the discussion, again, I would suggest restructuring this sentence to follow the sequence of the research objectives to make it easier to follow.

25. Could the authors expand on why they think study validity may be a limitation?

26. The table of “Item non-response in the survey” provided in the reviewer response could be added as supplementary material as evidence to support the claim made in lines 425-427 (clean version).

Conclusion

27. The phase “public embrace of conspiracy” (line 434, clean version) is a bit strong. It may be more accurate to say that the prevalence of beliefs in different conspiracy theories was investigated.

28. It seems like there may be a missing word/description after “Focused awareness” (line 441, clean version).

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 3;15(12):e0243264. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243264.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


4 Nov 2020

Dear Dr. Flávia L. Osório

Regarding our manuscript with ID: PONE-D-20-21682R1, entitled “COVID-19 misinformation: mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan”,

We would like to thank the third reviewer for the interesting, insightful and helpful comments that helped us to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments raised by the third reviewer.

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript “COVID-19 misinformation: mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan”. The revisions were highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in the manuscript file. A clean version of the revised manuscript is submitted as well.

We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in PLoS One.

Sincerely, and on behalf of the co-authors

Malik Sallam. MD, PhD

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #3

Reviewer #3: This is an interesting paper that explores knowledge, attitudes, and misinformation about COVID-19 and its effects on anxiety levels among adults in Jordan. Sources of information about the virus are also explored. The results of this paper are very important to highlight the consequences of misinformation so that the delivery of timely and accurate information is prioritized as pandemic management strategies are updated. However, the manuscript will need restructuring to better guide the reader through the paper. In particular, the authors should ensure that each analysis and writing decision always links back to the original research aims.

Below are more detailed comments and recommendations:

Major issues

Introduction

1. The introduction would benefit from supplementation and restructuring in order to provide the necessary background to frame the importance of this research, as well as to contextualize the setting in which this research was undertaken. I would suggest the following structure: (1) Global impact of COVID-19 (which the authors have already included); (2) Proper conceptualization of misinformation (e.g. definition, how it spreads) and its consequences (e.g. deaths in Iran due to false belief that ingesting methanol kills the virus); (3) Context of COVID-19 in Jordan (some details have been given in the response to reviewer 1’s last comment, but would be helpful if this were expanded upon and included in the main manuscript); (4) Why examining anxiety level is warranted/important, since it is one of the key outcome variables.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we added the following paragraph to define and show the effects of misinformation about COVID-19 at the global level as follows (in the clean version of the manuscript):

Page 3, lines 64-69: “The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared early on during the course of COVID-19 pandemic the existence of an accompanying “infodemic” [16]. This infodemic was defined as “an over-abundance of information – some accurate and some not – that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it” [16]. Inaccurate or false information that are communicated regardless of the deception intent is termed “misinformation” [17, 18]. This includes the circulation of conspiracy theories that prevail at times of fear and uncertainty [19].”

In addition, we supplemented the paragraph on COVID-19 in Jordan to elaborate on the rapid escalation of cases since late August as follows (in the clean version of the manuscript):

Page 4, lines 78-83: “In Jordan, strict governmental-issued infection control measures that included wide lockdowns, curfew, mask and social distancing enforcement, and prohibition of large gatherings were helpful in delaying the first wave of COVID-19 epidemic in the country. However, these measures can be viewed currently as “delaying the inevitable”, since the number of daily diagnosed cases of COVID-19 escalated rapidly from late August 2020, to reach more than 60,000 active cases by the end of October 2020 [28].”

Finally, we included a paragraph to show the importance of studying the anxiety levels in time of crisis/emergency as follows (in the clean version of the manuscript):

Page 4, lines 87-88: “Studying anxiety is of prime importance as well, since it may drive the public behavior and attitude towards the infection control and mitigation measures [29, 30].”

2. The objectives of the study are very clearly stated in lines 76-79 (clean version), which is great to see. These should guide the way that the subsequent sections of the paper are structured, as I will mention in a few comments below.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the comment. We will address the re-structure of subsequent sections according to the reviewer’s suggestions in the comments below (comment #12).

Methods

3. (Statistical analysis) While I see the author’s use of regression as a response to a comment from reviewer 1, it is not well justified why the most “complex” statistical approach was employed on belief in conspiracy as an outcome, since this is not one of the main research objectives. As the aim of the study is to evaluate knowledge, attitude and misinformation *on anxiety level*, if regression is used, it should be on this outcome. If the authors choose to retain their regression analyses on belief in conspiracy, why this approach was taken for this outcome in particular needs to be justified.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for raising this important issue that helped us to clarify our aim from conducting such analysis in response to reviewer 1. We agree that the use of belief in conspiracy as the outcome would not reflect our major aims (effect of misinformation on anxiety). In addition, we agree that the use of such a complex statistical model might not be appropriate for such an aim, in view of our previous analysis that was shown in the results section (Page 15, lines 319-323 of the clean version: “Higher anxiety scores were found among those who believed that COVID-19 is related to conspiracy (9.7 vs. 8.7; p<0.001; M-W), biological warfare believers (9.6 vs. 8.6, p<0.001; M-W), those who believed in the role of 5G networks in facilitating COVID-19 spread (10.3 vs. 8.9, p<0.001; M-W), and those who believed that the pandemic is a spiritual divine test (9.4 vs. 8.0, p<0.001; M-W, Fig 6)”. Thus, we omitted this part from the revised manuscript. However, to address the issue raised by reviewer 1, we re-phrased some strong statements in the abstract and discussion sections as follows:

In the abstract (Page 2, lines 37-40): “Misinformation about the origin of the pandemic (being part of a conspiracy, biologic warfare and the 5G networks role) was also associated with higher anxiety levels. Social media platforms, TV and news releases were the most common sources of information about the pandemic” Instead of “Misinformation about the origin of the pandemic (being part of a conspiracy, biologic warfare and the 5G networks role) was also associated with higher anxiety and lower knowledge about the disease”.

In the discussion section (Page 18, lines 387-388): “The results of the current study showed some harmful effects of belief in conspiracy in relation to higher anxiety levels” instead of “The results of the current study clearly delineate the existence of an association between misinformation about COVID-19 and the combination of higher anxiety and lower knowledge about the disease among the public in Jordan”.

In addition, we deleted the following paragraphs (in the revised highlighted manuscript): Page 8, lines 165-168: “To analyze the variables associated with higher likelihood of believing in the role of conspiracy in the origin of the pandemic, we conducted multinomial logistic regression analysis using the following variables (age, gender, nationality, monthly income, educational level, K-score and anxiety score).” Page 16, lines 320-323: “Using multinomial logistic regression analysis, we found an association of belief in conspiracy regarding the origin of the pandemic with a lower K-score (p<0.001), a higher anxiety score (p=0.006), female gender (p<0.001), and lower monthly income (p=0.029).”

Results

4. While the level of detail the authors have included in their results is commendable, the sheer volume of results may be overwhelming for the reader. I suggest picking out results that will be expanded on in the discussion instead of reporting on each finding individually, and in particular, being more selective about which demographic associations to report.

Response: Although we agree with the reviewer regarding the length of the results section, but we still believe that we included the most significant results only. The results section might appear more succinct once the figures, figure legends and tables are formatted according the final editing by the journal. We hope that the reviewer would agree with us regarding our motivation to keep the results section in the current length after re-organization as suggested.

5. The sections of the results should be restructured so that the research questions, as stated in the introduction, are answered in sequence: (1) Knowledge, attitudes, and misinformation; (2) The effects of (1) on anxiety; (3) COVID-19 information sources.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion and to keep the flow of text in the same order based on the objectives of the study, we re-organized the results section as follows:

• Characteristics of the study population

• COVID-19 knowledge

• Perception of COVID-19 danger and attitude towards quarantine

• Beliefs and misinformation about COVID-19 origin

1. Is COVID-19 part of a global conspiracy?

2. Is COVID-19 part of a biological warfare?

3. Do 5G networks have a role in COVID-19 spread?

4. Is COVID-19 a spiritual divine test or trial?

• Anxiety regarding COVID-19

• The main media and other sources of information about the pandemic

6. If regression analysis is used, it is important that its results are displayed in a table, and for coefficient estimates to be reported in the main text, in addition to the significance levels that are currently present in the manuscript.

Response: Please refer our previous reply to comment #3.

Discussion

7. Discussions about the belief in conspiracy theories and anxiety levels were addressed separately, and as I understood, mainly highlighted prevalence and demographic associations, respectively. However, this discussion piece should be reworked to address effects of misinformation on anxiety in order to answer the second research objective.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we added to our previous discussion the following statements (clean version):

Pages 18-19, lines 393-399: “The current climate of fear and uncertainty seems as a fertile soil from which conspiracy beliefs are born and thrive [50, 51]. Thus, the high prevalence of inaccurate beliefs about COVID-19 origins seems a plausible result. In addition, the link that was demonstrated between higher anxiety levels and conspiracy belief in this study, is not unique and can augment the previous evidence that such belief is harmful [27, 52, 53].”

“In particular, a recent study showed that belief in conspiracy is a predictor of distress and anxiety among health-care workers [54]. Another study found that such belief was associated with the presence of depression or distress [55].”

Conclusion

8. The key takeaway message needs to be more clearly highlighted. Based on the title of the paper, it would seem that the main message is: not only has this paper shown that misinformation is prevalent, but that it contributes to higher anxiety levels (i.e. more than “harmless delusions).

Response: We would like the reviewer for helping us to strengthen and clarify the conclusions of this research. Thus, we added the following statement to the conclusions section (clean version):

Page 21, lines 468-460: “Belief in the role of conspiracies, biological warfare, and 5G networks in the origin and spread of the disease was prevalent in this study and was also associated with a higher level of anxiety, which indicates that COVID-19 misinformation may have harmful effects among the general public.”

9. Having framed the issue that this study has revealed and to round off the conclusion, the authors could consider highlighting another important finding as a solution – that knowledge from reliable information sources seems to reduce this anxiety.

Response: We also would like to thank the reviewer for this insightful comment and based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we added the following statement to the conclusions section (clean version):

Pages 21-22, lines 472-476: “Our results indicated that the reliance on reliable sources to get information on the current pandemic (e.g. scientific journals and medical doctors) was associated with lower levels of anxiety. This demonstrates the significant role that should be played by the scientific community and clinicians to address the gaps in knowledge and to correct misinformation among the general public.”

Minor issues

Introduction

10. The use of the correct tense needs to be checked for consistency and/or appropriateness throughout the paper (e.g. “The entire world is facing an unprecedented challenge…” (line 46, clean version) vs. “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) resulted in…” (line 47-48, clean version))

Response: Based on the reviewer’s comments, we made the following changes (in the clean version of the manuscript):

-Page 3, line 46: “The entire world faced an unprecedented challenge” instead of “The entire world is facing an unprecedented challenge”.

-Page 3, line 49: “The public was left in a state of disarray” instead of “The public is left in a state of disarray”

Methods

11. The authors may consider removing the following sentences as this information is already present elsewhere in the methods: “Participation in the study was voluntary and an informed consent was included. The questionnaire was sent through Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and other social media platforms.” (lines 87-89, clean version).

Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment, we omitted the following sentence from the study design and description of the questionnaire part of the methods section: “The questionnaire was sent through Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and other social media platforms” and from the ethical permission paragraph of the methods section: “Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous.”

12. The methods section would also benefit from restructuring so that it is more intuitive for the reader to follow. The first paragraph is great, and I would recommend describing the questionnaire sections in the same sequence that they are mentioned in 93-94 (clean version): knowledge, attitude, misinformation, information sources, anxiety, and then sociodemographic variables. The descriptions of ethical permission and statistical approach can then follow.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we re-organized the methods section as follows (in the clean version):

• Study design and description of the questionnaire

• COVID-19 knowledge score (K-score) calculation

• Assessment of the anxiety score

• Source of information about COVID-19

• Ethical permission

• Statistical analysis.

13. In order to avoid confusion about what a “valid” K-/anxiety score may mean (e.g. that the measures were constructed from a validated scale), lines 121/122 and 129/130 (clean version) could be reworded to something like "Individual K-scores were considered valid and included in the analyses if the participant provided responses to all 13 items”.

Response: We appreciate the kind help of the reviewer that enabled us to clarify this statement. And based on that, we changed the two sentences as follows (clean version):

Page 6, lines 126-127: “Individual K-scores were considered valid and included in the analyses if the participant provided responses to all 13 items.”

Page 6, lines 135-136: “Individual anxiety-scores were considered valid and included in the analyses if the participant provided responses to all seven items.”

14. It is important to describe what “as appropriate” (line 135, clean version) means – which tests were used, for what, and why?

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we added the following sentences to clarify the statistical tests used in the study (in the clean version):

Page 7, lines 153-157: “We used the chi-squared (χ2) test to evaluate the significance of relationships between categorical variables. For continuous variables (e.g. age), we used the Mann-Whitney U (M-W) to compare the mean among two independent groups, and the Kruskal Wallis (K-W) test to compare the mean among more than two independent groups.”

Results

15. Similar to reviewer 1, I am also confused about the 1.8% margin of error. The response the authors provided to the reviewer would be helpful to include in the manuscript, and how this margin of error was calculated should also be described.

Response: Based on the reviewers’ comment, we added the following statement to the results section (clean version):

Page 8, lines 163-165: “This resulted in a minimum of 1.8% margin of error (an expression of how much the response of the study sample is representative of the general population)”.

The calculation was based on the online website (CheckMarket: https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/?fbclid=IwAR0DZS_iZnJpXTv76LXR4T5BFqE6qVGjViAtP2zy-uQAtiJ1gRBWeaEk-XQ), which has already been cited in our original submission: Reference No. 32 in the clean version: CheckMarket (2020) Calculate sample size margin of error.

16. The following sentence is incomplete: “While those who thought that the quarantine gave them an opportunity to spend a quality time with their families had a lower mean anxiety score (8.9 vs. 10.8, p<0.001; M-W).” (line 221-222, clean version)

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for correcting this error. The sentence was corrected into (in the clean version):

Page 15, lines 316-317: “The participants who thought that the quarantine gave them an opportunity to spend a quality time with their families had a lower mean anxiety score (8.9 vs. 10.8, p<0.001; M-W).”

17. The following sentence needs to be revised for clarity: “Older participants perceived the disease…” (lines 243-246, clean version)

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we revised the statement as follows (clean version):

Page 11, lines 236-238: “Older participants felt the disease as more dangerous compared to younger participants (40.6% vs. 31.7%), p<0.001; χ2, Table 2).”

18. The authors may consider whether gender (men/women) or sex (female/male) is being examined in the study and use the appropriate language consistently throughout the paper.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we used sex (female/male) instead of gender (men/women) throughout the manuscript as follows (clean version): Page 5, line 107; Page 9, Table 1; Page 13, Table 2; Page 15, line 311; Page 20, line 436.

19. Some results that are described are not presented within the tables or figures (e.g. spending time with family, demographic associations with conspiracy beliefs or information sources). Even if these results are not the main focus of the paper, if they are mentioned in the body of the text, they should at least be included as supplementary material.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we added a supplementary file (S2 File: Supplementary Tables [Additional Results]). This file included two tables on the attitude of the study participants to quarantine measures stratified by socio-demographic variables and on the Belief in conspiracy in relation to socio-demographic variables among the study participants.

20. The percentages reported for each source of information (from line 318, clean version), at first glance, appears quite low. From the questionnaire, I see that participants were asked to select their primary (vs. common) source of info and only allowed to select one option? This should be mentioned because it is more intuitive that people would consult more than one information source, and the phrasing “the most common source…” could be misleading.

Response: We would like the reviewer for this comment that allowed us to clarify this issue. The questionnaire was an electronic online survey and for the main source of information, we allowed one choice to be selected. We added this part to the methods section (clean version)

Page 6, lines 138-143:

“Source of information about COVID-19

To study the most common sources of COVID-19 information, we allowed the participants to select a single option out of the following choices: Ministry of Health official website, scientific journals, medical doctors, television programs and news releases, or social media platforms. If they selected social media, another single option was required to be answered (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or WhatsApp, S1 Appendix).”

Discussion

21. The following sentence needs to be revised for clarity: “More than 87% correct responses were found for eight items and more than 63% correct responses for eleven items out of thirteen total items that were used to assess COVID-19 knowledge in this study” (lines 349-351, clean version)

Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment and to help increasing the clarity of the statement, we re-phrased the paragraph as follows (clean version):

Page 18, lines 367-370: “This satisfactory knowledge was shown by the percentage of correct answers in response to the total of thirteen items that were used to assess COVID-19 knowledge in this study. More than 87% correct responses were found for eight items and more than 63% correct responses for eleven items.”

22. The authors should consider acknowledging the emergence of more recent evidence that COVID-19 reinfection may be possible (lines 356-357, clean version).

Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment, we added the following statement and a couple of references to clarify this issue (clean version):

Page 18, lines 375-377: “For the possibility of re-infection, the current evidence points to unlikely occurrence of such a phenomenon despite the need for more research tackling this aim in light of increasing reports on its genuine occurrence [35-41].”

23. The sentence in lines 365-367 (clean version) should be revised. As it currently reads, it seems like the there is an association between misinformation and anxiety/knowledge as a combined item.

Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment and in light of reviewer 1 previous comments, we edited the sentence as follows (clean version):

Page 18, lines 385-386: “The results of the current study showed some harmful effects of belief in conspiracy in relation to lower knowledge about the disease and higher anxiety levels.”

24. Given the length of the discussion, again, I would suggest restructuring this sentence to follow the sequence of the research objectives to make it easier to follow.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestion, but we prefer to keep the discussion in the current format and hopefully the reviewer would agree on that after reading the clean version of the manuscript.

25. Could the authors expand on why they think study validity may be a limitation?

Response: We included this statement to clarify that minor modification of some COVID-19 knowledge items should be taken into consideration upon evaluating the overall knowledge about the disease. Thus, to clarify this issue, we added the following sentence in the limitations section (clean version):

Pages 20-21, lines 443-444: “The study validity can be another limitation in relation to K-score calculation, despite having a majority of items adopted from previously published work [45]”.

26. The table of “Item non-response in the survey” provided in the reviewer response could be added as supplementary material as evidence to support the claim made in lines 425-427 (clean version).

Response: Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we added the following supplementary file (S3 Appendix) entitled “Table on the number and percentage of item non-response in the survey.”

Clean version, Page 21, line 448: “However, we believe that the later analysis did not result in severe bias considering that item non-response did not exceed 1.0% for the majority of survey items (S3 Appendix).”

Conclusion

27. The phase “public embrace of conspiracy” (line 434, clean version) is a bit strong. It may be more accurate to say that the prevalence of beliefs in different conspiracy theories was investigated.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the comment and based on that, we changed the sentence as follows (clean version):

Page 21, lines 453-455: “In the current research, we inspected knowledge of COVID-19 at a country level, with a special focus on the prevalence of belief in different conspiracy theories regarding the origin of the pandemic.”

28. It seems like there may be a missing word/description after “Focused awareness” (line 441, clean version).

Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment, we added the word “campaigns” to the sentence as follows (clean version):

Page 21, line 462: “Focused awareness campaigns and proper delivery of correct information is mandatory, particularly for this group to reduce the negative impact of the pandemic on their lives.”

Finally, we are deeply grateful for the thorough, insightful and comprehensive review made by the reviewers that helped us greatly in refining our research.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal_Letter_PONE-D-20-21682R1.docx

Decision Letter 2

Flávia L Osório

19 Nov 2020

COVID-19 misinformation: mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan

PONE-D-20-21682R2

Dear Dr. Sallam

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Flávia L. Osório, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

the reviewers consider that the article is suitable for publication, once all comments and suggestions have been met. However, reviewer 2 also made two small considerations, which should be addressed by the authors.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed correctly the indicated changes. The authors have completed correctly Reviewers comments and the manuscript have improved considerately.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for addressing each of the previous comments so thoroughly - the manuscript has been substantially improved and I really enjoyed reading it.

I only have two final comments regarding the following sentence (lines 80-83, clean version):

"However, these measures can be viewed currently as “delaying the inevitable”, since the number of daily diagnosed cases of COVID-19 escalated rapidly from late August 2020, to reach more than 60,000 active cases by the end of October 2020."

1. To serve as a comparison and show the "escalation" of cases, what was the number in late August 2020?

2. Do these numbers refer to the "number of daily diagnosed cases" or "number of active cases"? This should be consistent between the two time points.

Great work!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Flávia L Osório

24 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-21682R2

COVID-19 misinformation: mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan

Dear Dr. Sallam:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Flávia L. Osório

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Consent form and questionnaire translated to English (the original form in Arabic is provided as well).

    (PDF)

    S2 Appendix. Supplementary tables (additional results).

    (PDF)

    S3 Appendix. Table on the number and percentage of item non-response in the survey.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal_Letter_PONE-D-20-21682R1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES