JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

In the absence of a vaccine or curative treatment, non-pharmaceutical interventions regimes have been implemented by governments around the world, to slow the spread of COVID-19. The success of these NPIs has varied between countries and is likely to relate to the degree of uptake and adherence by the community. Understanding public attitudes towards these NPI regimes and the factors that promote public understanding and support for them would provide valuable insight to governments seeking to encourage acceptance of and adherence to these interventions. The analysis of social media offers the opportunity to retrieve these insights.

Objective:

The objective of this paper is to describe and compare the public Twitter- based discussion of NPIs implemented during the first four months of the COVID-19 pandemic, across six anglophone countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, and United States). The aim was to determine which NPIs received support from the public and whether there were identifiable elements of public discourse that offered meaningful insight into potential enablers and barriers to community adherence.

Methods:

We collected 2.5 million tweets related to the COVID-19 pandemic across six countries. These tweets were posted between January 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. Tweets underwent intensive pre-processing, resulting in the inclusion of 787,691 tweets deemed fit for analysis. A hybrid methodology integrating computational and qualitative analysis was adopted in this study, where the topic model MetaLDA was used to construct topics document sets which were coded and qualitatively analyzed. A total of 94 topics relating to NPIs were identified. A comparative analysis of the public views of NPIs between countries was then conducted. Visualizations and quantitative analysis supported this.

Results:

Our comparison of public discussion of NPIs showed that hand-hygiene was encouraged, and quickly adopted and across all countries surveyed. The spectrum of NPIs aimed at social-distancing required a period of adjustment before being broadly accepted, although, stay-at-home orders were called for in many cases before governments implemented these NPIs. There was contrasting public reaction to restrictions on travel and the closure of businesses. Countries, such as New Zealand, where restrictions were implemented early, showed broad community support and intent to comply. In other countries, such as Canada and the US, there was protracted debate over such restrictions and support for adherence was not as easily interpreted.

Conclusions:

Attitudes indicative of lowered community adherence to NPIs appear to be rooted in both the complexity of the imposed regime, and the corresponding lack of understanding of the regime in the community. Our study supports the hypothesis that public understanding and responsiveness is supported by consistency, clarity and timeliness of government messaging regarding NPI directives.