Background: Trust in science meaningfully contributes to our understanding of people’s belief in misinformation and their intentions to take actions to prevent COVID-19. However, no experimental research has sought to intervene on this variable to develop a scalable response to the COVID-19 infodemic. Objective: Our study examined whether brief exposure to an infographic about the scientific process might increase trust in science and thereby affect belief in misinformation and intention to take preventive actions for COVID-19. Methods: This two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit a US representative sample of 1000 adults by age, race/ethnicity, and gender using the Prolific platform. Participants were randomly assigned to view either an intervention infographic about the scientific process or a control infographic. The intervention infographic was designed through a separate pilot study. Primary outcomes were trust in science, COVID-19 narrative belief profile, and COVID-19 preventive behavioral intentions. We also collected 12 covariates and incorporated them into all analyses. All outcomes were collected using web-based assessment. Results: From January 22, 2021 to January 24, 2021, 1017 participants completed the study. The intervention slightly improved trust in science (difference-in-difference 0.03, SE 0.01, t1000=2.16, P=.031). No direct intervention effect was observed on belief profile membership, but there was some evidence of an indirect intervention effect mediated by trust in science (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, SE 0.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.12, z=2.01, P=.045) on membership in the “scientific” profile compared with the others. No direct nor indirect effects on preventive behaviors were observed. Conclusions: Briefly viewing an infographic about science appeared to cause a small aggregate increase in trust in science, which may have, in turn, reduced the believability of COVID-19 misinformation. The effect sizes were small but commensurate with our 60-second, highly scalable intervention approach. Researchers should study the potential for truthful messaging about how science works to serve as misinformation inoculation and test how best to do so. Trial Registration: NCT04557241; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04557241 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/24383

Randomization is an important tool used to establish causal inferences in studies designed to further our understanding of questions related to obesity and nutrition. To take advantage of the inferences afforded by randomization, scientific standards must be upheld during the planning, execution, analysis, and reporting of such studies. We discuss ten errors in randomized experiments from real-world examples from the literature and outline best practices for their avoidance. These ten errors include: representing nonrandom allocation as random, failing to adequately conceal allocation, not accounting for changing allocation ratios, replacing subjects in nonrandom ways, failing to account for non-independence, drawing inferences by comparing statistical significance from within-group comparisons instead of between-groups, pooling data and breaking the randomized design, failing to account for missing data, failing to report sufficient information to understand study methods, and failing to frame the causal question as testing the randomized assignment per se. We hope that these examples will aid researchers, reviewers, journal editors, and other readers to endeavor to a high standard of scientific rigor in randomized experiments within obesity and nutrition research.

Although general principles related to vaccination hesitancy have been well researched, reports on reluctance to be vaccinated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States are somewhat surprising, given the disease's substantive disruption of everyday life. However, the landscape in which people are making COVID-19 vaccination decisions has recently evolved with releases of encouraging vaccine-related data and changes to official messaging about the virus. Therefore, this study sought to identify factors associated with reported likelihood to get vaccinated for COVID-19 among US adults in late January 2021. We used the Prolific online research panel to survey a nationally representative sample of 1017 US adults. Respondents were asked about their behavioral intentions toward COVID-19 vaccination, trust in science, perceptions related to COVID-19, and selected sociodemographic factors. We computed associations between those 11 independent variables and likelihood to get vaccinated for COVID-19 using multiple linear regression. Around 73.9% of respondents indicated at least some likelihood to get vaccinated for COVID-19. Trust in science and perceived seriousness of COVID-19 were positively associated with intention to get vaccinated, and identifying as Black or African American was negatively associated with intention to get vaccinated. Other factors were moderately, weakly, or not at all associated with intention. Building trust in science and truthfully emphasizing the seriousness of catching COVID-19 should be further researched for their potential to support campaigns to encourage COVID-19 vaccination. Data continue to suggest the importance of dialogue with Black communities about COVID-19 vaccination.

Background: Schools increasingly prioritize social-emotional competence and bullying and cyberbullying prevention, so the development of novel, low-cost, and high-yield programs addressing these topics is important. Further, rigorous assessment of interventions prior to widespread dissemination is crucial. Objective: This study assesses the effectiveness and implementation fidelity of the ACT Out! Social Issue Theater program, a 1-hour psychodramatic intervention by professional actors; it also measures students’ receptiveness to the intervention. Methods: This study is a 2-arm cluster randomized control trial with 1:1 allocation that randomized either to the ACT Out! intervention or control (treatment as usual) at the classroom level (n=76 classrooms in 12 schools across 5 counties in Indiana, comprised of 1571 students at pretest in fourth, seventh, and tenth grades). The primary outcomes were self-reported social-emotional competence, bullying perpetration, and bullying victimization; the secondary outcomes were receptiveness to the intervention, implementation fidelity (independent observer observation), and prespecified subanalyses of social-emotional competence for seventh- and tenth-grade students. All outcomes were collected at baseline and 2-week posttest, with planned 3-months posttest data collection prevented due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Intervention fidelity was uniformly excellent (>96% adherence), and students were highly receptive to the program. However, trial results did not support the hypothesis that the intervention would increase participants’ social-emotional competence. The intervention’s impact on bullying was complicated to interpret and included some evidence of small interaction effects (reduced cyberbullying victimization and increased physical bullying perpetration). Additionally, pooled within-group reductions were also observed and discussed but were not appropriate for causal attribution. Conclusions: This study found no superiority for a 1-hour ACT Out! intervention compared to treatment as usual for social-emotional competence or offline bullying, but some evidence of a small effect for cyberbullying. On the basis of these results and the within-group effects, as a next step, we encourage research into whether the ACT Out! intervention may engender a bystander effect not amenable to randomization by classroom. Therefore, we recommend a larger trial of the ACT Out! intervention that focuses specifically on cyberbullying, measures bystander behavior, is randomized by school, and is controlled for extant bullying prevention efforts at each school. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04097496; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04097496 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/17900

Background: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect life in the United States, the important role of nonpharmaceutical preventive behaviors (such as wearing a face mask) in reducing the risk of infection has become clear. During the pandemic, researchers have observed the rapid proliferation of misinformed or inconsistent narratives about COVID-19. There is growing evidence that such misinformed narratives are associated with various forms of undesirable behavior (eg, burning down cell towers). Furthermore, individuals’ adherence to recommended COVID-19 preventive guidelines has been inconsistent, and such mandates have engendered opposition and controversy. Recent research suggests the possibility that trust in science and scientists may be an important thread to weave throughout these seemingly disparate components of the modern public health landscape. Thus, this paper describes the protocol for a randomized trial of a brief, digital intervention designed to increase trust in science. Objective: The objective of this study is to examine whether exposure to a curated infographic can increase trust in science, reduce the believability of misinformed narratives, and increase the likelihood to engage in preventive behaviors. Methods: This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, superiority trial comprising 2 parallel groups. A sample of 1000 adults aged ≥18 years who are representative of the population of the United States by gender, race and ethnicity, and age will be randomly assigned (via a 1:1 allocation) to an intervention or a placebo-control arm. The intervention will be a digital infographic with content based on principles of trust in science, developed by a health communications expert. The intervention will then be both pretested and pilot-tested to determine its viability. Study outcomes will include trust in science, a COVID-19 narrative belief latent profile membership, and the likelihood to engage in preventive behaviors, which will be controlled by 8 theoretically selected covariates. Results: This study was funded in August 2020, approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board on September 15, 2020, and prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusions: COVID-19 misinformation prophylaxis is crucial. This proposed experiment investigates the impact of a brief yet actionable intervention that can be easily disseminated to increase individuals’ trust in science, with the intention of affecting misinformation believability and, consequently, preventive behavioral intentions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04557241; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04557241 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/24383